NIRANT VIVIDH SEVA TRUST,NADIAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1661/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 September 20264 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a reasonable opportunity of being heard was not granted, noting that only a single notice was issued before the rejection. The Tribunal also addressed the CIT(E)'s refusal to condone the delay, referencing the Ahmedabad Bench decision in Shree Maruti Seva Foundation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), ITA No.2345/AHD/2025, which condoned delay in filing Form 10B and directed the CIT(E) to adjudicate the application. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to adjudicate the application afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and considering all relevant documents and submissions. The assessee is directed to cooperate and submit necessary documents promptly. Ground No. 1 was allowed, and Ground No. 2 was dismissed as infructuous without a finding on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nirant Vividh Seva Trust, filed an appeal against the order dated 17/03/2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the rejection was ex-parte and that it was not granted a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E)'s order noted that only one notice was issued on 25/02/2026 before the rejection. The CIT(E) also declined to condone the delay in filing, stating there was no Tribunal order condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on facts and in law, the learned CIT(Exemption) erred in not granting a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing and in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act, vide an ex-parte order, holding the application late and not maintainable? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 80G(5) of the Act). - Assessee's contention: The rejection was ex-parte, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided. The delay in filing should have been condoned, referencing the case of Shree Maruti Seva Foundation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption). - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether on facts and in law, the application made under Section 80G(5) of the Act ought to have been granted by the learned CIT(Exemption) as prayed for? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 80G(5) of the Act). - Assessee's contention: The application should have been granted. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

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, C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the Order, dated 17/03/2026, passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’], whereby the application filed by the Assessee seeking approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] was rejected.

2.

The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1.

That on facts, and in law, the learned not CIT (Exemption) has grievously erred in gra

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →