DNYANDEEP RASHATRIYA SAMAJIK VA SHAIKSHANIK VIKAS SANSTHA,OND vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1366/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 September 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering a similar issue in the assessee's own case, remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for approval under Section 80G(5) was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) for not submitting the correct type of approval order. The appeal was filed with a delay of 205 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's application for 80G approval was maintainable, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Avchat
For Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete
Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 08.09.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 08.07.2025 framed by CIT (Exemption), Pune rejecting application for grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 205 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land

2 Dnyandeep Rashatriya Samajik Va Shaikshanik Vikas Sanstha

Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 205 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee has filed the application for regular approval under 80G(5)(iii) of the Act on 16.02.2025. In order to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee, ld. CIT(Exemption) issued notice through ITBA portal on 22.03.2025 requiring the assessee to upload certain information. Assessee furnished the requisite details. Thereafter, ld.CIT(Exemption) issued another notice dated 20.05.2025 pointing out certain discrepancies in the details so filed. Assesssee again furnished its reply however ld.CIT(Exemption) rejected the application for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act stating as under :

“7. The present application is filed by the assessee under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G are related to application for renewal of regular approval of a trust or institution which is already having regular approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act and the period of said registration is about to expire.

8.

The assessee was specifically requested vide the initial notice to furnish the copy of order of regular approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such copy is actually required to be furnished along with the application itself under the provisions of Rule 11AA(2)(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the assessee has neither submitted the same along with the application nor in response to the notice issued in this regard. Thus the assessee failed to furnish the same. The copy of order submitted by the assessee along with the present application is a copy of provisional approval under section 80G(5)(vi) read with clause (iv) of 3 Dnyandeep Rashatriya Samajik Va Shaikshanik Vikas Sanstha

first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not a copy of regular approval under section 80G(5) (vi) read with clause (i) or clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The non-submission of copy of order of regular approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 establishes the fact that the prerequisite for application under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not fulfilled in this case. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that the application is not maintainable.

10.

In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is treated as non-maintainable and hence, 'rejected' for statistical purposes without going into the merits of the case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.”

4.

Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(Exemption).

5.

At the time of hearing, it is brought to the notice of Bench that vide ITA No.580/PUN/2026 this Tribunal in assessee’s own case has restored the issue of regular registration u/s.12A of the Act to the file of ld.CIT(Exemption) on account of filing of application under incorrect sub-clause.

6.

Considering the fact that the issue of regular registration has already been remitted to the file of ld.CIT(Exemption), the issue of approval u/s.80G(5) is also remitted to the file of ld.CIT(Exemption) for deciding it in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT (Exemption) and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 Dnyandeep Rashatriya Samajik Va Shaikshanik Vikas Sanstha

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 08th day of September, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 08th September, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty Madishetty Date: 2026.09.09 10:16:01 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →