HOLOS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2955/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 June 20267 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing applications under Section 80G(5) are directory in nature and not mandatory. Therefore, rejection based on delay alone is based on technicalities.

What were the facts?

The assessee was granted provisional approval under Section 80G(5)(iv) and subsequently filed an application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) in Form 10AB, but it was filed beyond the stipulated time limit. The CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) can be condoned and if the CIT(E) has the power to condone such delays.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(iv),Section 80G(5)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.2955/KOL/2025

Holos Healthcare Foundation.……………………….………………………….Appellant C/o. Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan,3rd Floor, Kolkata- 700013 [PAN No. AAGCH8247P] Vs. CIT(Exemption).….……………..………………..…………….………... Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata- 700071 Appearances by: Deep Agarwal, AR,appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 11, 2026 Date of pronouncing theorder :June 25 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.09.2025 of the Office of The Income Tax Department [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(E)’] of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

At the very outset, it appears from the report of the Registry that the appeal file by the assessee after a delay of 04 days. Assessee has filed a petition supported with an affidavit to

ITA No.2955/KOL/2025 condone the delay. Going over the contents of the petition, we condone the delay.

3.

The brief facts of the case of the assesseeis that assessee was granted provisional approval u/s 80G(5)(iv) of the Act in form No. 10AC for a period from Assessment Year 2024-25 to 2026- 27.Subsequently, an application for approval of the trust u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act was filed in form No. 10AB. A notice was issued with a request to furnish detail about the activities carried out by the assessee. In response to the notice assessee furnished certain details. The CIT(E) after going over the submission of the assessee finds that assessee did not file the form no. 10A within the stipulated time limit and Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to condone the delay.Accordingly, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before us.

4.

The ld. AR challenges the very impugned order of Ld. CIT(E) by submitting that the CIT(E) erred in law by rejecting the application as non-maintainable solely on the ground that the form 10AB has been field belatedly ignoring the settled law that

ITA No.2955/KOL/2025 that direction passed by the CBDT is purely a directory in nature and it is not mandatory. The prayer of the assessee is that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(E) after condoning the delay and direction has to give to pass an order on merit. The Ld. AR filed following citation.

(i) Mother Leela Trust Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai

(ii) Gram Bartori Vikas Shikshan Samiti AT/PO Bartori Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal (M.P)

Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.

5.

Upon hearing the submissions of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the sole issue for the rejection of the application for granting approval u/s 80G by the CIT(E) is the form 10AB filed beyond the time line prescribed by the revenue authorities. It is a fact that assessee has obtained provisional approval u/s 80G(iv) of the Act in form No 10AC and he filed an application for approval of the trust u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act in form no. 10AB.

ITA No.2955/KOL/2025 6. We have gone through the citation placed by the assessee and find that in case of Mother Leela Trust ITAT Chennai Bench has held thus:-

Rejection of application for grant of exemption u/s 80G- application of the assessee was rejected for having been filed late i.e beyond the timeline, including extended timeline, prescribed by the Revenue authorities case of the appellant that the delay cannot come in the way of its eligibility for grant of exemption u/s 80G whether the delay caused by the assessee in filing of its application u/s 80G for grant of registration can be condoned and registration be granted? HELD THAT:- As noted that CBDT through its instructions has accorded powers to the CIT(E) for condoning the delay in matters concerning 12A registrations. We have noted that while doing so, CBDT had primarily examined the issue of "continuing hardship" to the taxpayers in filing timely applications and thus being deprived of registration on such technical deficiencies. Registrations under section 12A and 80G are closely inter- linked and or rather supplementing their independent objectives. The present issue is also one of genuine hardships and therefore there cannot be a distinction within the same

ITA No.2955/KOL/2025 provision without bringing any exception. The provisions of 80G are for the benefit of donors who are donating amounts of money to Charitable Trusts, engaged in selfless public service, for claiming exemption in the Returns of Income. The uniform view taken by this tribunal on the issue is that, considering the amendment by the Finance Bill 2024, the applications u/s 80G(5) after the due date can be considered within the meanings of the section 80G(5)(iv). As noted that the decision of the Coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of CIT-1982 Charitable Trust [2024 (3) TMI 1201ITAT CHENNAI] which has gone to conclude that the timelines u/s 80G(5) are directory in nature and that therefore any rejection of delayed applications by CIT(E) would be merely a case of reliance on pure technicalities. We direct the CIT(E) to treat the delayed application filed by the assessee as having been filed under clause-(iv) of the first proviso to section 80G and decide in accordance with law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The same view has been taken by the ITAT Bench Raipur in Gram Bartori Vikas Shikshan Samiti.

ITA No.2955/KOL/2025 7. Keeping in view the facts of the case as well as considering the order passed by the Tribunal, we direct the CIT(E) to treat the delay application filed by the assessee as have been filed under clause 4 of the first proviso to Section 80G and decide in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 25th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:25.06.2026. DC, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy//

ITA No.2955/KOL/2025 By order

AssistantRegistrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(iv)

All 127 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(iv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →