SHREE VALLAB YUVAK PARISHD,VARANASI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 30/VNS/2025Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 August 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the application was filed under the wrong section (80G(5)(ii) instead of 80G(5)(iii)). However, to provide relief, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application as filed under the correct section and decide accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the application, deeming it premature and filed under the wrong section, as the assessee had only provisional registration.

What were the issues?

Whether an application for registration under section 80G filed under a wrong sub-section can be considered under the correct sub-section, and if the rejection based on filing under the wrong section is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 Archit Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 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.30/VNS/2025 A.Y. –NA Shree Vallab Yuyak Parishd, vs. CIT(E), K, 38/6, Bada Mahraj Ji Ka Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, Mandir, Gol Ghar, Varanasi, Ram Teerth Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226012. Uttar Pradesh-226001. PAN: AABTS2476H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Shri Archit Pandey, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.08.2026 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. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) dated 24.12.2024 wherein the learned CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee for registration under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in circumstances of the case Ld CIT Exemption has erred for rejecting the application filed for granting registration u/s 80G(5) (ii) of the I.T. Act 1961 in form No. 10AB on dated 29.06.2024. 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and in circumstances of the case order passed by the authorities below is against the principle of natural justice & equity and also without giving proper opportunity of being heard.”

2.

The facts of the case are that the assessee’s Society filed an application on 29.06.2024 for registration under section 80G(5)(ii) of the

2 Act in Form No. 10AB. The learned CIT(E) noted that such provisions were applicable in respect of Trust or Institutions that had already been registered under section 80G(5) for a period of five years and the period of such registration was due to expire. On the other hand, the assessee had only been granted provisional registration on 05.04.2022, which was valid from AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25 and therefore the application under section 80G(5)(ii) was found to be premature and non-maintainable. Accordingly, it was rejected though the provisional registration granted under section 80G(5)(iv) was left undisturbed.

3.

The assessee is aggrieved at this rejection on its application and has accordingly filed an appeal before us.

4.

Shri Archit Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that he had only been informed about the appeal fixation date just before hearing and therefore unable to compile the necessary records / Paper Book. Accordingly, he prayed for an adjournment in the matter. However, Shri Deepak Yadav, Learned Sr. D.R. pointed out that the learned CIT (E) had not cast any adverse inference upon the assessee or withdrawn any existing exemption, but had only rejected the present application because it was made under a wrong section. He submitted that the assessee could always file a fresh application under correct section and the same would be considered in accordance with law.

5.

We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments placed before us. We note that the assessee had been granted provisional registration under section 80G(5)(iv) on 05.04.2022 which was valid from the AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25. The provisions of section 80G(5)(iii) required that before such provisional registration expires, the assessee should file an application for permanent registration

3 at least six month before the date of expiry. Accordingly, had filed the application on time. We also note that before rejecting the application, the learned CIT(E) had issued a detailed questionnaire to the assessee regarding its activities but subsequently he has not recorded any adverse findings against the assessee in his order of rejection. From the same we presumed that no adverse material was gathered against the assessee that would otherwise disqualify it from obtaining the registration. However, as the assessee made the application under a wrong section i.e. 80G(5)(ii) instead of section 80G(5)(iii), the said application was rejected as non- maintainable.

6.

Considering the fact that the time period for filing the said application under section 80G(5)(iii) has since lapsed, we believe it to be in the interest of justice to restore this matter back to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction that the said application made under section 80G(5)(ii) may be considered to be an application under section 80G(5)(iii) and decided accordingly. If the learned CIT(E) feels it necessary, he may obtain fresh application from the assessee under the correct section and thereafter examine the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, with the aforesaid comments the issue is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E).

7.

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 →