SRI DAS FOUNDATION,VARANASI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 120/VNS/2025Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 August 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently filed under the wrong section due to a typographical error. It was held that the matter should be restored to the CIT(Exemption) to consider the application as if it were filed under the correct section.

What were the facts?

The assessee society applied for registration under Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the application, holding it was premature and should have been filed under Section 80G(5)(iii) as the assessee had a provisional approval expiring soon.

What were the issues?

Whether an application for registration under Section 80G, filed under a technically incorrect sub-section due to a clerical error, should be rejected outright or considered on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(ii),Section 80G(5)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VARANASI “DB”BENCH, VARANASI

Before: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT-DR
Hearing: 06.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI “DB”BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.120/VNS/2025 A.Y.- NA Sri Das Foundation, vs. CIT(Exemption), S 10/252 Sunder Villa Maqbool Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Alam Road Cantt, Varanasi, Narahi, Lucknow, U.P. Uttar Pradesh-221002. PAN: AABTS1852P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Shri Arvind Shukla, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 06.08.2026 Date of pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow refusing to register the Society under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1. Because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in passing an order dated 25.03.2025 in Form 10AD rejecting the appellant's application for registration under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is arbitrary, perverse, non-speaking, time- barred, and in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Because the learned CIT(Exemptions) has erred in holding that the appellant's application filed in Form No. 10AB on 29.09.2024 was premature and non-maintainable under Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Act, thereby misapplying the statutory provisions and CBDT Circulars No. 11/2022 dated 03.06.2022 and 22/2022 dated 01.11.2022.

ITA No. 120/VNS/2025 A.Y.- NA Sri Das Foundation

3.

Because the rejection of the application on the alleged ground that the appellant ought to have applied under Section 80G(5)(iii), when the appellant was holding a valid and subsisting provisional approval under Section 80G(5) in Form 10AC up to AY 2024-25 (i.e., up to 31.03.2025), is wholly misconceived, contrary to law, and constitutes a clear mistake apparent from the record. 4. Because the learned CIT(Exemptions) has grossly erred in law in passing the impugned dated order 25.03.2025, but uploaded on 10/04/2025 i.e. beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Rule 17A(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, thereby rendering the said order null and void ab initio and without jurisdiction. 5. Because the impugned order suffers from complete non-application mind, of inasmuch as no adverse findings or deficiencies were ever communicated to the appellant after its reply dated 20.01.2025 to the issued on questionnaire 03.01.2025, and the final rejection was passed in undue haste without affording any further opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 6. Because the learned CIT(Exemptions) has failed to appreciate that the order under appeal is non-speaking, devoid of any factual or legal reasoning, and mechanically passed without considering the detailed submissions, documents, and compliance furnished by the appellant. 7. Because the impugned order erroneously refers to the provisional registration granted in Form 10AC as valid for three years, whereas the said certificate clearly mentions validity up to AY 2024-25, i.e., up to 31.03.2025, and such a patent factual misstatement renders the foundation of the rejection legally untenable. 8. Because the learned CIT(Exemptions) has acted in a manner inconsistent with the binding precedents and administrative discipline laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, which mandate reasoned, fair, and timely disposal of registration exemption applications under sections 12AB and 80G. 9. Because the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing in the interest of justice.”

2.

The facts of the case are that the assessee society filed an application on 29.09.2024 for registration under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Act in Form No. 10AB. After seeking certain clarification from the assessee, the learned CIT(E) noted that the assessee trust was provisionally approved under section 80G(5) since 16.10.2025 to the AY 2024-25. Accordingly in his opinion the application ought to have been filed under 2

ITA No. 120/VNS/2025 A.Y.- NA Sri Das Foundation section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. However the assessee had filed the application under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Act which was application in respect of Trust/Institutions already registered under section 80G(5) of the Act and where the period of such registration was due to expire. Since in the present case, the assessee was only provisionally approved in Form 10AC for a period of three years, hence he found the application to be prima facie non-maintainable and he accordingly rejected the same.

3.

The assessee is aggrieved at this rejection of its application. Shri Arvind Shukla, Advocate, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) had failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee’s provisional registration was due to expire on 31.03.2025 and therefore the assessee had applied for permanent registration within time period permitted under the Act. He submitted that quoting of section 80G(5)(ii) instead of 80G(5)(iii) was a typographical error which ought to have been considered by the learned CIT(E) and registration ought to have been granted to the assessee under the proper section as it was eligible for. It was prayed that since the assessee met all the eligibility conditions, the registration should not be denied only for a technical mistake.

4.

On the other hand, Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT-DR submitted that the assessee had filed the application under a wrong section and therefore the learned CIT(E) was correct in rejecting the same. However the learned CIT(E) had not passed any adverse observations with regard to the submissions of the assessee trust and therefore the assessee could always file an application in the proper format and obtain the registration.

5.

We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by both the parties. It is clear that the

ITA No. 120/VNS/2025 A.Y.- NA Sri Das Foundation assessee, which was provisionally registered upto 31.03.2025 was required to file an application for permanent registration under section 80G(5)(iii) but had inadvertently filed an application under 80G(5)(ii). The learned CIT(A) observing that the said application for registration was only available to Trusts that were already granted permanent registration, rejected the assessee’s application as prima facie not maintainable. The learned CIT-Learned D. R. has submitted that in the absence of adverse comments the assessee could always apply afresh for registration under section 80G(5)(iii) and the learned CIT(E) would look into the matter. However, taking note that the timelines for the same have since expired, accordingly, after considering the facts, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) for consideration of the application as though it were an application under section 80G(5)(iii). If required, the learned CIT(E) may request the assessee to furnish a fresh application and then proceed to consider the same in accordance with law.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 31.08.2026 in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31/08/2026 SK, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(ii)

All 222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →