INTRNATIONAL CENTRE FOR CULTURAL STUDIES,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 312/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 June 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the second application, filed to correct a technical defect in the first, should be considered a continuation of the original proceedings. The time-bound nature of filing applications is procedural, and the Prescribed Authority failed to consider the assessee's plea judiciously.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially filed an application for approval under Section 80G(5) using a wrong section code. This application was rejected. A second application was filed to rectify the mistake, but it was also rejected for being filed beyond the extended due date.

What were the issues?

Whether a second application filed to rectify a technical defect in the first application should be treated as a continuation of the original proceedings, and if the delay in filing the second application should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Ashtikar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 09.06.2026Pronounced: 11.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (for short, “CIT(E)”), dated 18/03/2025; whereby application for regular approval under Section 80G(5) has been rejected.

ITA No. 312/NAG/2025 (International Centre for Cultural Studies) 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee has raised ground no. 2 to remand the matter back to the Ld. Prescribed Authority. We find that the case of assessee is as follows:–

1.

The original application of approval under clause (ii) [instead of clause (iii)] of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) was filed on 08.05.2024 seeking the benefit of extended due date of 30.06.2024 vide Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024. The learned Respondent vide a notice dated 07.10.2024 sought clarification about the wrong section code filled in the aforesaid application. The said application was rejected by the O/o the Respondent holding that the said application was filed in wrong section code vide an order dated 21.10.2024 & no adverse inference whatsoever was drawn against the Appellant. 2. That, the Appellant had filed another application in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 14.10.2024 with a view to rectify its mistake. It was prayed that the aforesaid application dated 14.10.2024 may be considered as removal of defect in the original application. As the initial application was rejected vide order dated 21.10.2024. The second application filed by the Appellant was treated as independent application by the O/o the Respondent. The second application for approval U/s 80G(5) was rejected by the learned Respondent vide an order dated 18.03.2025

ITA No. 312/NAG/2025 (International Centre for Cultural Studies) holding that the Appellant had filed the same beyond the extended due date of 30.06.2024. The Appellant has challenged the said order in the instant appeal. 3. That the Appellant wishes to submit that the second application filed on 14.10.2024 was intended to remove the defects regarding wrong selection of section code in the earlier application filed on 08.05.2024 (within the extended due date of 30.06.2024). Although said second application was considered as independent by the O/o the Respondent, it had direct nexus with the earlier application. Hence, the unintentional delay in filing the second application dated 14.10.2024 ought to have been condoned by the learned Respondent & the matter ought to had been decided on merits. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the application for approval U/s 80G(5) dated 14.10.2024 causing the foundational stone for the rejection of the same & forming the subject of the instant appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal may be condoned & the matter may be remanded back to the files of the learned Respondent for adjudication afresh for meeting the logical & legally tenable ends of justice in the matter.

3.

Though the Ld. DR has relied on the impugned order, we find that the impugned order mentions that the application in Form 10AB being filed on 14.10.2024 and thereafter it was examined to verify the genuineness of the

ITA No. 312/NAG/2025 (International Centre for Cultural Studies) activities of the assessee and fulfilment of conditions of Section 80G(5) Ld. Prescribed Authority mentions in para 4 of the impugned order that this application filed on 14.10.2024, is beyond the period of limitation which is provided under the Act and extended by the CBDT Circular NO. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024. The Prescribed Authority observes that the provisional approval was dated 31.03.2024 and as per the provisions of the Act, at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional approval or within six months from the date of commencement of activities, the application should be filed and thus where the provisional approval was due to expire on 31.03.2024, the present application was required to be filed before 30.09.2023, however, the present application has been filed on 14.10.2024.

4.

The assessee had responded to the same by submitting that an application was earlier filed on 08.05.2024 before the end of extended due date for filing an application which was 30.06.2024, however, the same was rejected by order

ITA No. 312/NAG/2025 (International Centre for Cultural Studies) dated 21.10.2024 for quoting wrong Section in the application. Therefore, the fresh application has been filed on 14.10.2024, however this aspect has not been considered by Ld. Prescribed Authority.

5.

We are of the considered view that if the first application of the assessee was dismissed for quoting wrong section, then the fresh application filed on 14.10.2024 by correcting the alleged discrepancy, the same should be considered to be continuation of proceedings as we are not apprised of any procedure under the Act or Rules wherein on dismissal of an application on technical reasons, assessee can rectify and remove the defect. The procedure laid down in the Act for filing of the applications within a time bound manner is merely procedural in nature and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Prescribed Authority has failed to consider the plea of assessee in right and judicious perspective.

6.

Accordingly, we restore the issue to the files of Ld. Prescribed Authority, CIT(E) to consider the application of

ITA No. 312/NAG/2025 (International Centre for Cultural Studies) the assessee afresh on merits, keeping in mind the aforesaid observations.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in open Court on 11.06.2026 Sd/– Sd/– ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur: Dated: 11/06/2026 Z.U, P.S Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order

Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Nagpur

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 →