KASHIPUR MA SARADA MISSION ,PANCHAKOTRAJ vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Challenging the Rejection on Technical Grounds: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [CIT(E)] erred in law and on facts by rejecting the application filed in Form No. 10AB under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the technical ground of delay in filing, without considering the charitable nature and genuineness of the Appellant's activities.

Erroneous View on Mandatory Nature of Time Limits: That the learned CIT(E) erred in holding that the time limits prescribed under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are strictly mandatory and that possessed no power to condone the delay. The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that procedural requirements are handmaids of justice and should not be used to defeat the substantive right of a genuine charitable institution to receive donations under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Consistency with Registration Under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961: That the learned CIT(E) failed to consider that the Appellant has already been granted regular registration under section 12AB(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961for the Assessment Years 2027-28 to 2036-37 via an order dated March 5, 2026. Since the registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (which confirms the genuineness of activities) has been granted, the rejection of 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 approval for the same period on a mere technicality is inconsistent and unjustified.

Application for Assessment Year 2027-28: That the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application filed for the Assessment Year 2027-28 by citing delays related to previous periods. The Appellant contends that since regular registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been accorded from AY 2027-28 onwards, the 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 approval should have been processed on merits for the same block of years.

Failure to Exercise Judicial Discretion: That the learned CIT(E) failed to exercise the judicial discretion vested in him to condone technical delays in cases where the Appellant have genuine charitable mission. The rejection of the application without an examination of the merits of the charitable work carried out by the Appellant is contrary to the spirit of the law aimed at encouraging philanthropy.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: That the order of the learned CIT(E) is arbitrary, passed without proper appreciation of the submissions made by the Appellant, and is therefore liable to be set aside.”

Brief facts of the case are that the Ld. CIT (Exemption) had initiated the proceedings u/s 80G(5) of the Act after the assessee had filed an application electronically on 30.09.2025 in Form No. 10AB seeking regular approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) observed that the assessee was granted provisional Kashipur Ma Sarada Mission. approval u/s 80G(5)(iv) of the Act and was required to file the application within the prescribed time limit. Despite the CBDT extending the time limit up to 30.06.2024 vide Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024, the assessee did not file the application within the extended period. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) therefore, concluded that the time limits prescribed u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act are mandatory and there is no power to condone the delay, and rejected the application as non- maintainable without examining the merits of the case.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had applied for approval for AY 2027-28 onwards.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption). The Bench was of the view that the Ld. CIT (Exemption) had denied the claim of exemption u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act on account of delayed filing of application in Form No. 10AB u/s 80G(5) of the Act by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it was considered imperative that the assessee may be allowed another opportunity. The assessee had sought approval from A.Y. 2027-28 onward and the Ld. CIT (Exemption) had also granted the regular registration/approval under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from AY 2027-28 onwards, therefore, on the same facts, the approval u/s 80G(5) also ought to have been allowed. Hence, the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for deciding the application afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the ITA No(s). 1239/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2027-28 Kashipur Ma Sarada Mission. assessee and seeking the reply from the assessee in respect of the queries raised and in accordance with law. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd July, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 23.07.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order