NATHU KA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1209/JPR/2026 (Assessment Year: NA)

Nathu Ka Foundation Vs. CIT 29, Vishwakarma Colony Exemption Mangayavas, Mansarovar Jaipur Jaipur

�थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAETN 0621N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Shravan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT Date of Hearing 07.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.10.2026 O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta, AM:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT Exemption, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(E)”), dated 23.03.2026 denying grant of approval under Section 80G(5)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1209/JPR/2026 Nathu Ka Foundation 2. The Ld. CIT(E) has denied the approval for the reason that the assessee had filed its application under the incorrect clause. His order reads as under:- The applicant filed an online application on 29.09.2025 in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. As per provisions of clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) section 80G, the application under this section is to be filed in the case:- "(ii) where the institution or fund is approved and the period of such approval is due to expire, at least six months prior to expiry of the said period". From the plain reading of clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961, it is evident that the application under this section is to be filed by the trust or institution which is already approved u/s 80G(5) of the Act. 02. On perusal of the application filed by the applicant, it was noticed that the applicant is not eligible for approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) section 80G of the Act since it was not already registration under clause (1) or (iii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G. To clarify the same, the applicant was issued a letter/notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025-26/1085129466 (1) dated 23.01.2026 to justify its claim for approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) section 80G of the Act on or before 28.01.2026. In response to the above deficiency letter/notice, the assessee did not furnish it reply. On perusal of documents available on record, it is found that the application is resisted under Sub-clause (A) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G dated 03.04.2024. 03. Since, the applicant has no prior approval u/s 80G(5)(i) and filed form 10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. Therefore, the applicant is not eligible for approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, as not already registered under clause (i) or (iii) of first proviso to 80G(5) of the Act. Therefore, application filed on 29.09.2025 in form 10AB for grant of approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G is hereby rejected as being deficient/not eligible for renewal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing pointed out that in the identical facts and circumstances the assessee’s application seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act was also rejected by the Ld.

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1209/JPR/2026 Nathu Ka Foundation CIT(E) which in turn was directed to be reexamined afresh by the ITAT in its order in ITA No.1212/JPR/2026 dated 30.09.2026. The copy of the order was placed before us. The relevant portion of the order from para 5 to 10 reads as under:- ……. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The rejection rests entirely on the sub-clause selected in the application. A trust or institution which holds provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act is required to apply for regular registration under sub-clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. The application in both cases is made in the same Form No. 10AB. The learned CIT(E) was aware, from his own record, that the Assessee holds provisional registration. The error of the Assessee was thus in the manner in which the application was presented, and not in its substantive eligibility to seek regular registration. 6.The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Jodhpur, in Shree Bhuwal Mataji Gaushala Sanstha v. CIT (Exemption) (ITA No. 497/Jodh/2025 and connected appeals), order dated 14.08.2026, has dealt with applications rejected for selection of an incorrect clause, and has observed at paragraph 16 as under: "16. ... In dealing with such cases, a distinction necessarily has to be maintained between a defect which goes to the substantive eligibility of an applicant and one which inheres merely in the manner in which the statutory application has been presented. The former cannot be cured by treating it as a procedural irregularity; the latter may, depending upon the statutory framework, admit of rectification. Thus, an incomplete form, an inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause or absence of a document capable of being subsequently furnished ought not ordinarily to foreclose examination of the substantive claim if the defect is legally capable of being cured." 7. We respectfully agree with the above order. The application of the Assessee is required to be examined as one under sub-clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. In doing so, the learned CIT(E) will also have to consider whether the application satisfies the time limit prescribed in that sub-clause. We note in this regard that, with effect from 01.10.2024, the following proviso has been inserted in section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024:

P a g e | 4 ITA No.1209/JPR/2026 Nathu Ka Foundation "Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time;" 8. The dates of the provisional registration and of the commencement of activities are not available in the impugned order. These aspects, and the question of condonation of delay, if any, will have to be examined by the learned CIT(E). 9. As regards Ground 1.2, we note that the Assessee did not respond to the letter dated 23.01.2026. The Assessee cannot, therefore, make a grievance of the want of opportunity. The matter is being restored only because the rejection rests on a curable defect. The Assessee is expected to cooperate fully in the fresh proceedings. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the application in Form No. 10AB dated 29.09.2025 is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The learned CIT(E) shall be free to examine all aspects of the application and to call for such documents, information and explanations, and make such inquiries, as may be considered necessary. The application shall be treated as one made under the appropriate clause of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, and the Assessee shall be at liberty to rectify the form and furnish the supporting documents. The Assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and furnish the details called for without delay. The learned CIT(E) shall pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. We express no opinion on the merits of the application. …….. 4. Ld. DR fairly admitted that the application seeking registration u/s 12A was also rejected for identical reasons and has been restored back by the ITAT for reconsideration afresh by the Ld. CIT(E). 5. In view of the above admitted facts, the application seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act is also restored back to the Ld. CIT(E) to be examined afresh along with the assessee’s application seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act and in accordance with the directions of the ITAT for

P a g e | 5 ITA No.1209/JPR/2026 Nathu Ka Foundation registration u/s 12A of the Act in the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1212/JPR/2026. 6. In effect, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. Senthil Kumar) (Annapurna Gupta) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 29.10.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Mittali Digitally signed by: Mittali DN: CN = Mittali email = Asst. Registrar mittaligupta34671@gmail.com C = ITAT, Jaipur IN O = Personal Date: 2026.10.30 12:52:53 +05'30'