MANORAMA DABRAL JAN KALYAN SAMITI,BALASAUR, PAURI GARHWAL vs. EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

ITA No.233/DDN/2026 MANORMA DABRAL JAN KALYAN SAMITI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.233/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2025-26 MANORAMA DABRAL JAN KALYAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SAMITI, (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW. Village Balasaur, Post Balasaur, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal 246149, Uttarakhand. PAN No. AAFAM0578D Appellant Respondent

Assessee by Shri Saurabh Sharma, CA (VC) Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR (VC)

Date of hearing: 25.06.2026 Pronouncement on 03.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. In this case, this matter arises from order dated 25.02.2026, passed u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(Exemptions)-Lucknow. Through this order the application of the assessee has been rejected on the basis of the following finding: -

“As noted, applicant is approved by CIT(E) vide order dated 31.01.2022 under clause (vi) as it stood immediately before its amendment before TOLA, 2020, however, it is not approved within the stipulated time limit u/s 80G(5)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by CPC, which is required for approval u/s 80G(5)(vi).” 1

ITA No.233/DDN/2026 MANORMA DABRAL JAN KALYAN SAMITI 1.1 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds of appeal as under: -

“The appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal, each ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds: 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow [CIT(E)] erred in rejecting the appellant's application for approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order in Form No. 10AD dated 25.02.2020. 2. That the impugned order is bad in law, contrary to the facts on record, and liable to be quashed as it proceeds on a purely technical premise without adjudicating the appellant's eligibility, charitable objects, genuineness of activities and compliance with the conditions of section 80G(5). 3. That the learned CIT(E) erred in holding that the appellant was not approved within the stipulated time limit under section 80G(S)()) by CPC, without properly appreciating the appellant's existing approval/registration status and the records available on the income-tax portal. 4. That the impugned order is self-contradictory and non- speaking, inasmuch as it records, on one hand, that the trust was approved within the stipulated time limit under section 80G(5)(1) by CPC, and thereafter records the opposite conclusion that the appellant was not approved within the stipulated time limit under section 80G(5)(i) by CPC. 5. That the ld CIT(E) failed to appreciate that any alleged wrong selection of clause, technical mismatch or portal-related defect in an application for approval under section 80G(5) is curable and ought not to result in denial of substantive statutory benefit to an otherwise eligible charitable institution. 6. That the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without issuing a clear defect notice and without providing the appellant a proper and effective opportunity to explain, rectify, revise or regularize the application under the correct clause/proviso of section 80G(5), if so required. 7. That the impugned order does not disclose any date of effective opportunity afforded to the appellant before rejection and is therefore violative of the principles of natural justice.

ITA No.233/DDN/2026 MANORMA DABRAL JAN KALYAN SAMITI 8. That the learned CIT(E) failed to consider that the appellant is engaged in charitable activities, as also recorded in the impugned order itself under the column "Nature of activities", and no adverse finding has been recorded regarding charitable purpose, genuineness of activities, application of Income, or violation of any condition under section 80G(5). 9. That the learned CIT(E) erred in treating the alleged non- approval under section 80G(5)(1) by CPC as a conclusive bar to consideration of the appellant's application under section 80G(5)(ii), instead of examining the application on merits or directing correction of the technical classification. 10. That the ld CIT(E) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in a fair and purposive manner and rejected the application mechanically by observing that he was "left with no other option", although he had jurisdiction to call for clarification, grant opportunity and pass a reasoned order on merits. 11. That the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind as it does not specify the exact statutory requirement allegedly not satisfied, the factual basis for the alleged non-compliance, or the manner in which such alleged non-compliance disentitles the appellant from approval under section 80G(5). 12. That the rejection defeats the beneficial object of the provisions governing charitable institutions and ought to be set aside in favour of a substantive examination of the appellant's eligibility. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” Relief prayed in Grounds The appellant prays that the impugned order dated 25.02.2026 be quashed and the approval under section 80G(5) be directed to be granted. Without prejudice, the matter may be restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to consider the application afresh on merits after granting reasonable opportunity and permitting correction of any technical defect.” 2. Before us the Ld. AR stated that to begin with there was denial of opportunity at the level of Ld. CIT(Exemption) and the impugned order was passed without the benefit of any explanation from the assessee’s

ITA No.233/DDN/2026 MANORMA DABRAL JAN KALYAN SAMITI side. Thereafter, it was stated that the assessee was engaged in bona fide charitable work and deserve registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The Ld. AR prayed for restoring this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(Exemption) for consideration on merits.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the impugned order.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.

ITA No.233/DDN/2026 MANORMA DABRAL JAN KALYAN SAMITI