EURASIAN CANCER RESEARCH COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2783/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2026AY 2024-254 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Eurasian Cancer Research Council, filed an appeal against an order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2024-25. There was a delay of 404 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed this delay to the severe health issues of their counsel, who underwent angioplasty and suffered from anxiety and high blood pressure, requiring significant rest and preventing them from focusing on work for approximately 15 months. The assessee provided a sworn affidavit and medical documents to support this claim. The Revenue did not dispute the medical condition or the supporting documents.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 404 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be bona fide, genuine, and sufficient, supported by medical documents and a sworn affidavit. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasizing a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal held that the assessee's application for approval under section 80G should not have been rejected merely for an inadvertent reference to clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), when clause (iii) was applicable due to the provisional approval in Form No. 10AC. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Commissioner himself observed the applicability of clause (iii) but rejected the application on the technical ground of the incorrect reference. Following decisions of coordinate benches in Rotary Charity Trust v. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai, and Shri Ram Ek Dharmada Trust v. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits, treating the application as filed under the correct provision (clause (iii)). The Tribunal also advised the Ld. Commissioner to consider the substance of such applications rather than rejecting them on technical grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 404 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned under section "sufficient cause" as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, considering the medical condition of the assessee's counsel and the supporting documentation provided. 2. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of an incorrect reference to clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), when clause (iii) was applicable due to provisional approval in Form No. 10AC, is justified, or if the application should be considered on merits by treating it as filed under the correct provision. Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to the bona fide and genuine medical reasons of their counsel, supported by evidence. The rejection of the 80G application was based on a technicality (incorrect clause reference) and should not defeat the substantive claim, especially when the correct provision was apparent from the record and similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay but did not dispute the medical condition or the documents filed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-G,Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Pronounced: 22.09.2026

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member

This appeal has been preferred by the ASSESSEE against the order dated 12.03.2026, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for A.Y. 2024-25. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 404 days in filing the instant appeal.

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 80-G

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →