AASHRAY DURG BAHU UDDESHIY SAMAJIK SANSTHA,NASIK vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NSK, NASIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1375/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 20263 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating it was not intentional. It held that mentioning the wrong clause of the First Proviso to section 80G(5) is not fatal and directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application afresh on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for approval under section 80G(5) was rejected by the CIT(E) for technical reasons, specifically for mentioning the wrong clause of the First Proviso. There was also a significant delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the rejection of an 80G(5) application on a technical ground of mentioning the wrong clause is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(E) dated

27.11.2024 in rejecting the application for approval under section 80G(5).

2.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The

ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is a

delay of about one year in filing appeal before Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal

is not intentional. The assessee trust was dependent upon consultant and there

is no in-house expert in matter relating to trust matters. The assessee has good

case on merit and is likely to succeed if his case is considered on merit. On

merits, the ld AR of the assessee submits that application of assessee under

Aashray Durg Bahu Uddeshiy Samajik ITA No. 1375/M/2026 (AY: 2025-26) section 80G(5) was rejected by taking view that assessee has applied under

wrong clause of First proviso of section 80G(5). The application was rejected for

technical reasons and without considering the case on merit. The assessee is

having registration under section 12AB. Thus, the assessee is also eligible for

approval of fund under section 80G(5). Mere mentioning of wrong clause of First

proviso to section 80G(5) is not fatal as has been held in a series of decision by

Tribunal.

3.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that assessee has not

explained the delay properly. The delay may not be condoned. On merit, the ld.

Sr. DR for the revenue submits that in case this bench is of the view that delay is

condoned, the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) as the case has

not been considered on merit.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. Firstly, we are

considering the issue of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. We find that

assessee is a charitable trust and having valid registration. The application of

assessee for registration under section 80G(5) was rejected on technical ground.

The ld. AR of the assessee explained before us that they were dependent upon

consultant who was not taken step in time for filing appeal the official of

assessee is not having technical knowledge of the subject. Considering the

overall fact of the case, we find that delay is not intentional or deliberate. Thus,

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case.

Aashray Durg Bahu Uddeshiy Samajik ITA No. 1375/M/2026 (AY: 2025-26)

5.

We find that application of assessee was dismissed to technical reasons for the

want of mentioning appropriate / inappropriate clause of first proviso to section

80G(5). Considering the fact that mentioning the wrong clause of first proviso to

section 80G(5) is not fatal. Therefore, we direct the ld. CIT(E) to consider the

application of assessee for regular approval of funds as afresh and pass the order

in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order of ld.

CIT(E) shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee

is also directed to provide necessary detail. In the result, grounds of appeal of

assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 06/05/2026.

/- S/- /- Sd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 06/05/2026 Biswajit

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai

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 →