ISHWAR DAYAL PARSANDI DEVI VIDYA PRASARNI SABHA,BULANDSHAHR vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6256/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) Ishwar Dayal Parsandi Devi Vidya Prasarni Sabha, vs. CIT (Exemptions), IP College Campus II, Dariyapur, Lucknow. Bulandshahr – 203 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AAAAI4215N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pramod Maglik, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Yashvendra Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2026 Date of Order : 24.06.2026 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 24.03.2026 for the Assessment Year 2026-27. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR brought to our notice the ld. CIT (E)’s order and submitted that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act.) on 30.09.2025 seeking approval under second proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G

2 ITA No.6256/DEL/2026 of the Act, which has been rejected by Ld. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow vide order dated 24.03.2026. He further submitted that the only issue involved is that the ld. CIT (E), Lucknow erred in rejecting the approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act mentioning that, “As per the provisions contained in clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, the application was required to be filed at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. Since, the applicant is provisionally approved from AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25, therefore, the application in Form 10AB was required to be filed, in either case, on or before 30.09.2023. Further, the CBDT, vide Circular no.7/2024 dated 2S.04.2024 had extended this due date to 30.06.2024. Despite this, the applicant failed to furnish the application within the extended due date. Since the applicant failed to file application in Form 10AB within extended due dates, therefore, the belated application cannot be accepted, hence, rejected as not maintainable.” 3. Further ld. AR submitted that the observation made by the ld. CIT (E) constitutes a mistake apparent from the record due to the following reasons:  The applicant institution was granted approval u/s 80G valid upto 31.03.2026 vide order dated 31-03-2025 bearing DIN No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM44/2024-25/1075337964( 1)

3 ITA No.6256/DEL/2026  Therefore, the effective validity period of approval extended up to 31.03.2026, and not restricted to AY 2024-25 as erroneously assumed in the impugned order.  As per the relevant statutory provisions, the application in Form 10AB is required to be filed at least 6 months prior to the expiry of the current approval (i.e., on or before 30.09.2025), Since the applicant filed the Form 10AB on 30.09.2025, it is perfectly within the limitation period prescribed by the law. 4. Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the ITAT may direct the ld. CIT (E) to grant regular approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act to the assessee with retrospective effect, in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the order of the ld. CIT (E). 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that ld. CIT (E) rejected the application being the belated application. However, we observed that the assessee institution was granted approval u/s 80G valid upto 31.03.2026 vide order dated 31-03- 2025, therefore, the effective validity period of approval extended up to 31.03.2026, and not restricted to AY 2024-25 as erroneously assumed in the impugned order. We further observed that as per the relevant statutory provisions, the application in Form 10AB is required to be filed at least 6 months prior to the expiry of the current approval (i.e., on or before 30.09.2025), Since the applicant filed the Form 10AB on 30.09.2025, it is perfectly within the limitation period prescribed by the

4 ITA No.6256/DEL/2026 law. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the interest of justice, we direct the ld. CIT (E) to grant regular approval under section 80G(5) of the Act to the assessee with retrospective effect as per law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 24th day of June, 2026 after the conclusion of the hearing.

Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.07.2026 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI