RADHA SWAMI VIVIDH KARYAKARI SHAI SHANIK SANSTHA,NAGPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

ITA 619/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 June 20267 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should decide issues on merits and that a mere reference to a wrong provision or minor procedural delays should not lead to dismissal. The principle of substantial compliance should be applied.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for regular approval under Section 80G(5) was rejected by the CIT(E) due to an error in mentioning the provision of law and a delay in filing. The assessee appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether an application for approval under Section 80G(5) can be rejected solely on technical grounds like a wrong provision reference or minor delay, instead of deciding on merits. Whether the principle of substantial compliance applies to procedural requirements in such applications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia, CA
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (for short, “CIT(E)”), dated 21/08/2025 whereby application for regular approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act has been rejected.

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that the impugned order has been passed by Ld. Prescribed Authority observing that there was error in mentioning the provision of law under which the application was filed seeking approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act and further there was a delay in filing the application.

3.

We are of the considered view that quasi–judicial authorities are supposed to decide the issues on merits and merely r

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →