DR. M MADHAVI AMMA CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “A. For that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) Chennai, [CIT (E)] under section 80G(5) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 24.03.2026 is erroneous, bad in law, and was passed ignoring the facts and merits of the case.

At the outset, it is noticed that the present appeal has been instituted by the assessee with a delay of one day beyond the period prescribed under the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit setting forth the reasons and circumstances which occasioned the delay in preferring the appeal within the stipulated time. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and examined the explanation tendered by the assessee. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period, we are of the considered opinion that the delay does not appear to be deliberate, intentional or attributable to any mala fide conduct.

It is a settled proposition of law that, while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the opposite party. In the present case, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of one day in filing the present appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust had obtained provisional registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act vide order dated 02.10.2021 for the AYs 2022-23 to 2026-27, and similarly provisional

At the time of hearing, the ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had obtained provisional registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act on 02.10.2021 for the AYs 2022-23 to 2026-27, and provisional approval u/s.80G(5)(i) of the Act on 02.10.2021 for the same period. The ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has since filed an application for regular registration u/s.332(3) of the Income Tax Act, 2025 in Form No.105 on 12.08.2026, which is pending before the ld.CIT(E). Therefore, the ld.AR prayed that the order of the ld.CIT(E) rejecting the application for approval u/s.80G of the Act be set aside and the matter be remitted back with a direction to dispose of the same along with the application for registration filed on 12.08.2026 in Form No.105.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the rejection of the application of the assessee for approval u/s.80G of the Act, on the ground that the assessee did not hold regular registration u/s.12AB of the Act, deserves to be sustained in the light of the subsequent application filed by the assessee for regular registration.

It is not in dispute that one of the conditions for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act, as noted by the ld.CIT(E), is that the income of the institution should not be includible in its total income under the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Act, or sections 10(23AA) or 10(23C) of the Act, which, in the case of a trust such as the assessee, presupposes a valid registration. The ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application solely on the ground that the assessee did not hold regular registration u/s.12AB of the Act on the date of his order, and has not examined the application on any other aspect. The eligibility of the assessee for approval u/s.80G is thus directly dependent on the outcome of its application for regular registration. The assessee has, subsequent to the impugned order, filed an application for regular registration u/s.332(3) of the Income Tax Act, 2025 in Form No.105 on 12.08.2026, which is pending before the ld.CIT(E). In these circumstances, the very basis of the rejection of the application for approval u/s.80G is one which may no longer survive, depending on the outcome of the said application, and it would be appropriate that both the applications are considered together by the ld.CIT(E).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.