CRESCENT EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3111/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 October 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. It noted that the CIT(E) rejected the renewal application based on the incorrect assertion that the earlier approval expired in AY 2024-25. The Tribunal observed that the regular approval granted on 21.03.2023 was, in fact, valid up to AY 2026-27, a fact not referred to in the impugned order. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the question of delay did not arise as the regular approval was still valid. Considering the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination of whether the approval granted on 21.03.2023 was indeed valid from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Crescent Educational and Charitable Trust, filed an appeal against the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. The appeal pertains to the rejection of the assessee's renewal application under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a public charitable trust running a school, was initially granted provisional approval under Section 80G on 08.04.2022, valid up to AY 2024-25. Subsequently, regular approval was granted on 21.03.2023, valid from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. The assessee filed a renewal application in Form No. 10AB on 29.09.2025. The CIT(E) rejected this application, citing it was filed belatedly after September 2023 and that there was no provision to condone the delay, relying on the expiry of the provisional approval in AY 2024-25.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the assessee's renewal application under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of belated filing and expiry of provisional approval? Assessee's Contentions: - The rejection of the renewal application in Form 10AB was erroneous as it was filed based on an incorrect premise that the application was belated. - The regular approval under Section 80G, granted vide Form 10AD dated 21.03.2023, was valid up to AY 2026-27 and had not expired in AY 2024-25 as assumed by the CIT(E). - The CIT(E) erred by relying solely on the provisional approval and ignoring the subsequent regular approval. - The CIT(E) wrongly concluded there was no provision to condone delay without appreciating the incorrect factual premise. - The impugned order was passed without issuing a show cause notice. - The assessee prayed to set aside the order and direct the CIT(E) to grant approval. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue opposed directing the CIT(E) to grant approval but agreed to remand the matter for fresh examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO & BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

Hearing: 28.07.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण’सी’�ायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ीइंटूरीरामाराव, लेखासद� एवं�ीएस.एस.िव�ने�रिव,�ाियकसद�केसम�। BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No. 3111/Chny/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: - Crescent Educational and Charitable Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Trust, (Exemptions), Tippu Nagar, Saramedu Main Road, Chennai – 600 034. Kuniamuthur Post, Coimbatore – 641 008. [PAN: AABTC-2891-A] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate & : Mr. N. Arjunraj, Advocate ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondentby Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT : सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of hearing : 28.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date ofPronouncement 14.10.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai.

2 ITA No. 3111/Chny/2026

2.

Ground nos. 1 to 8 raised by the assessee are with regard to challenging the action of ld.CIT(E) in rejecting the renewal application u/s.80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assesseeis a public charitable trust engaged in educational activities and running a school at Coimbatore. The assessee was initially granted provisional approval u/s. 80G of the Act vide Form No. 10AC dated 08.04.2022, valid up to AY 2024–25. Subsequently, regular approval u/s. 80G was granted by the ld.CIT(E) Form No. 10AD dated 21.03.2023, valid from AY 2022– 23 to AY 2026–27. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 29.09.2025, seeking renewal of approval and enclosing a copy of the earlier regular approval. The said approval was also furnished in response to the departmental questionnaire dated 27.01.2026, vide submission dated 12.02.2026. However, the ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 25.03.2026, rejected the application on the ground that it was filed belatedly after September 2023 and that there was no provision to condone the delay, relying on the expiry of the provisional approval in AY 2024–25. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the appeal before this Tribunal.

3 ITA No. 3111/Chny/2026

4.

The ld.AR, Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri. N. Arjunraj, Advocate, submits that the order of the ld.CIT(E) in rejecting renewal application dated 29.09.2025 u/s. 80G of the Act is erroneous and bad in law. He submits that the ld.CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application in Form 10AB on the incorrect premise that the same was filed belatedly without appreciating the fact that the assessee had, after the provisional approval which was valid till AY 2024-25 duly applied for the regular approval in accordance with the provisions of the Act and argued that such regular approval u/s. 80G of the Act had already been granted to the assessee vide order in Form 10AD dated 21.03.2023 which is valid up to AY 2026-27. Further, he vehemently argued that the ld.CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the regular approval u/s. 80G of the Act in the case of the assessee had not expired in AY 2024-25 as erroneously assumed, but continued to remain valid up to AY 2026- 27 and therefore, the question of delay in filing the application does not raise. Further, he submits that the ld.CIT(E) has erred in relying solely on the provisional approval granted in Form10AC dated 08.04.2022, while completely ignoring the subsequent regular approval granted to assessee in Form10AD dated 21.03.2023. Further, he argued that the

4 ITA No. 3111/Chny/2026

ld.CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts in concluding that there is no provision to condone the delay without appreciating that the rejection itself is based on an incorrect factual premise regarding the validity period of approval. Further, the order of the ld.CIT(E) is unsustainable in law as the impugned order was passed without issuing any show cause notice. He prayed to set aside the order of ld.CIT(E) and direct the ld.CIT(E) to grant approval u/s. 80G of the Act as per law.

5.

The ld.DR, Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT, vehemently opposed in directing the ld.CIT(E) to grant approval, but however agreed to remand the matter to the file of ld.CIT(E) for his fresh examination in terms of the submissions made by the ld.AR.

6.

Heard both the parties and perused material available on record. We note that the assessee is a public charitable trust engaged in the educational activities conducting its activities under the name and style Crescent Educational and Charitable Trust in Coimbatore. The assessee obtained provisional approval u/s. 80G of the Act in Form 10AC on 08.04.2022, which is valid up to AY 2024-25. Subsequently, the assessee applied for regular approval u/s. 80G of the Act in Form

5 ITA No. 3111/Chny/2026

10AB on 17.09.2022, which is according to the ld.AR well within the prescribed time and the revenue granted approval u/s. 80G of the Act vide order dated 21.03.2023 valid from AY 2022-253 to AY 2026-27. Thereafter, the assessee had applied Form10AB seeking renewal for approval granted u/s. 80G of the Act vide acknowledgement no. 872377430290925 which is also well within prescribed time. We note that the assessee had duly attached earlier approval dated 21.03.2023 along with Form 10AB on 29.09.2025. The ld.AR vehemently argued that the order of the ld.CIT(E) is not justified in holding the provisional approval u/s. 80G of the Act obtained from CPC on 08.04.2022 had already expired in AY 2024-25 and the assessee ought to apply for renewal in September, 2023 itself, but not in September, 2025. We find force in the arguments of ld.AR that the ld.CIT(E) rejected the renewal sought u/s. 80G of the Act is only based on incorrect assertion that the earlier approval u/s. 80G of the Act expired in AY 2024-25 itself without appreciating the factual decision that such approval in fact valid up to AY 2026-27. Admittedly, the said facts were not referred in the impugned order. Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld.AR and ld.DR, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of ld.CIT(E) for his fresh examination in view of discussion made herein

6 ITA No. 3111/Chny/2026

above as to whether approval granted u/s. 80G of the Act vide order dated 21.03.2023 is valid from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27 and passe order in accordance with law. The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(E) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14thOctober, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 14.10.2026 JPV आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड�फाईल/GF.

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.10.16 16:10:02 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 80G

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →