SARASWATHI EDUCATION AND CULTURE TRUST, MYSORE,MYSORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1590/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 September 2026AY 2026-20278 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application in Form 10AB solely on the technical ground of selecting the wrong section code was not justified. Citing decisions from the Ahmedabad and Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal (Modasa Ekda Visha Khadayata Kovadia Kelavani Mandal, Aatman Foundation, Gandhinagar Ayyapa Pooja Samiti, Rotary Charity Trust, and Nitdaa Foundation), the Tribunal reasoned that such applications should not be rejected for inadvertent incorrect clause selection. The principle established is that technical defects in form filing, when the substance of the application is otherwise valid, should not lead to outright rejection. For ITA 1590/Bang/2026, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(E)'s file, directing that the application be treated as filed under the correct clause (clause (iii) to the second proviso to section 80G(5)) and decided on merits. Regarding the delay in filing the application, the Tribunal noted the absence of a condonation provision in Section 80G and directed the assessee to approach the CBDT for condonation of the 46-day delay. Once condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to reconsider the application on merits. For ITA 1589/Bang/2026, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous because the adjudication in the first appeal rendered the subsequent order moot.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Saraswathi Education and Culture Trust, filed two appeals (ITA 1589 & 1590/BANG/2026) against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore (Ld. CIT(E)). The appeals pertain to assessment year 2026-27. The core issue in ITA 1590/Bang/2026 was the rejection of the assessee's application in Form 10AB for regular approval under Section 80G. The rejection by the Ld. CIT(E) was based on the assessee selecting the wrong section code (clause (iv)(B) instead of clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5)). The assessee is an old charitable trust with existing registration u/s 12AB and had previously received provisional approval u/s 80G. The second appeal, ITA 1589/Bang/2026, arose from a subsequent order where a fresh application, filed with the correct code, was rejected on grounds of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application in Form 10AB for approval u/s 80G of the Act solely on the technical ground that the assessee had selected the wrong section code (mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 80G(5)). Assessee's contention: The application was rejected only on a technicality of selecting the wrong section code. The assessee is an old charitable trust with valid registration and undisputed activities, and had prior 80G approval. Such an inadvertent error should not lead to rejection. Revenue's contention: The assessee had obtained provisional approval u/s 80G and was therefore required to apply under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). Since the assessee selected clause (iv)(B), the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application. 2. Whether the rejection of the fresh application in Form 10AB on the ground of delay was justified (mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 80G(5) and related procedural aspects). (No specific arguments for this issue are detailed in the provided text, but it arises from the subsequent rejection of the application due to delay after the initial rejection on technical grounds.)

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 12A,Section 12AB,Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Shri J Pavitran Kumar, CIT (DR)

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The captioned two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore, (hereafter the Ld. CIT(E)), in Form No. 10AD dated 7-10-2025 and 29-03-2026. First, we take up the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 1590/Bang/2026 as the lead case.

ITA 1589 & 1590/BAN

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

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →