SHRI MUMBAI JAIN YUVAK SANGH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

ITA 8789/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 October 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the application was rejected by examining its maintainability only under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). The CIT(E) had not examined whether the application could be considered under clause (iv)(B) of the said proviso. The Tribunal referred to the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2023 and the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, which, as applicable on the date of the application, permitted an institution whose activities have commenced to apply for approval at any time after commencement of such activities. Since the CIT(E) had not examined the application under clause (iv)(B) and had not dealt with its merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application under clause (iv)(B), examine the genuineness of activities and fulfillment of conditions, and pass a fresh order after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The period and assessment year for approval were to be determined as per statutory provisions. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Mumbai Jain Yuvak Sangh, filed an appeal against the order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application in Form No. 10AB for grant of approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a charitable trust, had previously been granted provisional approval under section 80G on 23.09.2021. The application in Form 10AB was filed on 02.10.2025, seeking regularization of the provisional approval. The CIT(E) rejected the application as non-maintainable, holding that it was filed beyond the prescribed time and that he lacked the power to condone the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the material on record? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application on the basis of provisional approval, without considering that the appellant had already been granted final approval in Form No. 10AC and the application was for renewal? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application merely on the grounds that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, without considering the true scope and object of the statutory provisions? 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) failed to appreciate that the impugned order was based on an erroneous factual premise, vitiating its reasoning? 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) failed to appreciate that once the appellant enjoyed final approval under section 80G, the provisions relating to regularization of provisional approval and alleged delay did not arise? 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely on alleged procedural delay without recording adverse findings regarding genuineness of the appellant, its charitable objects, or activities? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without appreciating the material, on the basis of provisional approval, and solely on procedural delay. It contended that it had already received final approval and the application was for renewal. The assessee also argued that the order was based on an erroneous factual premise and that the issue of delay did not arise as it already had final approval. Furthermore, it argued that the CIT(E) failed to consider the genuineness of its activities and objects, which are primary considerations under section 80G. Revenue's contentions: The Departmental Representative relied on the impugned order and supported the CIT(E)'s conclusion that a belated application under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) could not be entertained in the absence of an express power to condone the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 10(23C),Section 11,Section 12

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SHRI JAGADISH

For Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vona, CIT-DR
Hearing: 24.09.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”] under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), rejecting its application in Form No.10AB for grant of approval. Shri Mumbai Jain Yuvak Sangh

2.

The assessee has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with

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 →