SRI KRISHNA PRANAMI SEVA SANGH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD-1(4), HYERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 157/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Sri Krishna Pranami Seva Vs. Income Tax Officer Sangh, Hyderabad (Exemption) Ward 1(4) PAN:AAPAS8997L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Manoj Kumar राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, CIT (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Sri Krishna Pranami Seva Sangh (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(E)”) dated 12.12.2024. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 328 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order was

passed by the Ld. CIT(E) on 12.12.2024. However, the present appeal came to be filed before the Tribunal on 22.01.2026 resulting in a delay of 328 days. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the General Secretary of the assessee society, Late Shri Satyanarayana Agrawal, who was exclusively looking after the income-tax matters of the assessee society, was suffering from cancer since December, 2023 and ultimately expired on 23.12.2024. It was submitted that all matters relating to the approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and other income-tax proceedings of the assessee society were being handled by the said General Secretary and the status of the proceedings was known only to him. Due to his prolonged illness and subsequent demise, the relevant facts regarding the rejection of approval could not be communicated to the other office bearers of the society. The Ld. AR further submitted that the office bearers of the assessee society were under a bona fide belief that the approval under section 80G remained valid up to 31.03.2025 and, therefore, no immediate steps were taken in respect of the impugned order. It was only in December, 2025, when one of the donors informed the society that the claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act had been denied on the ground that the approval of the assessee society stood rejected, that the present office bearers became aware of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E). Immediately thereafter, the assessee obtained the relevant records, sought professional advice and took steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR further drew our attention to the death certificate of Late Shri Satyanarayana Agrawal and the medical records, treatment papers and other supporting documents placed on record

evidencing that he was suffering from cancer during the relevant period. It was submitted that the explanation furnished by the assessee is duly supported by documentary evidence and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence or lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, it was prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the reasons furnished by the assessee do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such a substantial delay. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the condonation petition filed by the assessee be rejected. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the documents placed before us, we find that the assessee has filed the death certificate of Late Shri Satyanarayana Agrawal showing that he expired on 23.12.2024. We have also gone through the medical records, treatment papers and other supporting documents placed on record. On perusal of the same, we find that Late Shri Satyanarayana Agrawal was suffering from cancer and was undergoing treatment during the relevant period. The documentary evidence furnished by the assessee lends substantial support to the explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the condonation petition. We further find that the income-tax matters of the assessee society were being primarily handled by Late Shri Satyanarayana Agrawal and the explanation furnished by the assessee that the rejection order

could not come to the knowledge of the remaining office bearers due to his prolonged illness and subsequent demise appears to be reasonable and bona fide. We also find merit in the submission of the assessee that immediately upon becoming aware of the rejection of approval under section 80G of the Act, steps were taken for obtaining professional advice and filing the present appeal. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the delay and find that the explanation is neither fanciful nor lacking in bona fides. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the factual assertions made by the assessee in the affidavit or the supporting documentary evidence. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a justice-oriented approach should be adopted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical considerations and that a liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with condonation petitions so that meritorious matters are not thrown out at the threshold on technical grounds. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. On perusal of the facts of the present case, we find that the assessee has furnished a reasonable, plausible and bona fide explanation for the delay. The circumstances resulting in the delay were beyond the control of the assessee society and arose on account of the prolonged illness and subsequent demise of the person who was

exclusively handling the tax affairs of the assessee. We are satisfied that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 328 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

grant of final approval under section 80G of the Act vide order dated 12.12.2024. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that during the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee had furnished all the details and documents called for from time to time. He submitted that the assessee had fully cooperated in the proceedings and there was no failure on its part in furnishing information. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had already been granted registration under section 12AB of the Act and was also granted provisional approval under section 80G of the Act. According to him, the assessee had not violated any of the conditions stipulated in the provisional approval granted on 25.03.2022. He contended that despite the same, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of final approval under section 80G of the Act without pointing out any specific deficiency in the application or identifying any violation of the conditions prescribed under the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any proper reasons for rejecting the application and, therefore, the same is a non-speaking order. Accordingly, he prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(E). He submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) had passed the order after considering the material available on record and, therefore, the order does not call for any interference.

provisions of the Act or any violation of the conditions subject to which provisional approval under section 80G of the Act was granted to the assessee. We also find that the assessee is already holding a valid registration under section 12AB of the Act and had earlier been granted provisional approval under section 80G of the Act. However, while rejecting the application for final approval, the Ld. CIT(E) has not recorded any categorical finding demonstrating as to how the assessee has violated any statutory condition or failed to satisfy any of the requirements prescribed under the Act. In our considered opinion, an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority must contain reasons. Recording of reasons is an essential facet of the principles of natural justice. The reasons constitute the soul of a judicial or quasi-judicial order and enable the appellate authority to examine the correctness of the decision arrived at by the authority concerned. In the present case, we find that the rejection order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is bereft of any specific finding regarding the alleged deficiency or violation committed by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order, in our considered view, is a non-speaking order. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the application of the assessee for grant of final approval under section 80G of the Act afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to

file all necessary evidences, documents and submissions in support of its claim before the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee is also directed not to seek any unnecessary adjournment and to extend full cooperation during the course of the proceedings. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 10th June, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 SRI KRISHNA PRANAMI SEVA SANGH 1-8-95/102 AMAR APARTMENT, P G ROAD. SECUNDERABAD 500003 Telangana 2 Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward 1(4), Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT – (Exemption) Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.06.11 RAO 11:17:21 +05'30'