SAMATECH FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1598/MUM/2026Status: HeardITAT Mumbai14 May 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the period during which the initial application was pending should be excluded, and considering this, there was no effective delay. Technicalities should not prevent substantial justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 80G was rejected by the CIT(E) due to delayed filing. The assessee had initially applied under the wrong sub-section, and after correction, the fresh application was deemed late.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the application for registration under Section 80G should be condoned, and if the period of pendency of a prior, incorrectly filed application should be excluded for calculating the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1598/Mum/2026 Assessment Year : 2026-27 Samatech Foundation, Commissioner of Metro House, Income Tax (Exemptions), First Floor, M.G. Road, vs. Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Marinelines, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400020. MTNL Building, Pedder Road, PAN : ABACS3726P Dr.Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad (virtually appeared) For Revenue : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13-05-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 14-05-2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-Mumbai [Ld. CIT(E)] dated 09-05-2019, wherein the assessee’s application seeking registration u/s. 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) has been rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) on account of delayed filing of application.

2.

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee originally applied for provisional registration u/s. 80G of the Act under the new regime on 11-08-2021, which was granted by the competent authority

2 ITA No. 1598/Mum/2026

on 23-09-2021. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application for seeking final registration on 25-10-2024 wherein the application was wrongly moved u/s. 80G(5)(ii) instead of section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, which was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dt. 17-06-2025 for the reason that the assessee has applied for registration under the wrong provisions. It was submitted that the assessee thereafter immediately moved a fresh application on 27-06-2025 in Form-10AB for registration under the correct provisions i.e., section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act which has since been dismissed vide the impugned order dt. 27-12-2025 on account of delayed filing and against which, the assessee is in appeal before us.

It was submitted that the original application was filed within the extended due date and there is no adverse finding recorded by the ld CIT(E) while rejecting the original application and thereafter, given the fact that the original application was under consideration by the Ld.CIT(E), the period during which the application was pending consideration before the Ld.CIT(E) needs to be excluded for working out delay in filing the application and where the same is considered, there is effectively no delay in filing the present application. It was further submitted that in any case, the CBDT had come out with a Circular dt. 7/2024, dt. 25-04-2024, wherein considering the practical difficulties, the due date has been extended from time to time and has empowered the Ld.CIT(E) to condone the delay in filing the applications and in fact the assessee has moved the condonation application before the Ld.CIT(E). However, the same has not been appreciated by the Ld.CIT(E) and registration has been denied on account of late filing. It was accordingly submitted that the delay in filing the application be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the same afresh on merits.

3 ITA No. 1598/Mum/2026

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR is heard, who has relied on the order passed by the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee in its condonation application filed before the ld CIT(E) has not brought on record the relevant facts in terms of the rejection of the original application and had the same been brought on record, the ld CIT(E) could have considered the application. At the same time, given that the assessee has placed on record the initial application and rejection order against the original application, he didn’t raise any specific objection where the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the application and decide on merits of the matter.

4.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, admittedly, the assessee has moved the initial application seeking renewal of the registration u/s 80G(5) which was rejected not on ground of delay but on account of the fact that the application was moved under the wrong provisions and the assessee thereafter moved a fresh application under the correct provisions, we find that the period taken for the disposal of the initial application needs to be excluded and where the same is considered, there is effectively no delay in filing the present appeal and in such a situation, the matter needs to be decided on merits rather than being rejected at very threshold. Where technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice, the cause of substantial justice should taken precedence and the Courts and the Tribunals have taken a consistent view that where the assessee has demonstrated reasonable cause, the matter shouldn’t be dismissed at the threshold on account of mere technicality but be heard on merits. Considering the same, the CBDT has also issued circulars from time to time to avoid and mitigate hardship to the assessee especially in the context of evolving requirements under the new registration regime. Considering the same, we hereby set aside the impugned order so passed by the ld CIT(E) and the matter is set-aside to

4 ITA No. 1598/Mum/2026

the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to decide the same afresh on merits as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14-05-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 14-05-2026 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →