CHANDRAKALA GMJAIN CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

Before us, the Ld.AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld.CIT(E) and further relied on the decisions rendered by the Mumbai Bench in Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation vs CIT(E) [2025] 171 taxmann.com 726 (Mumbai-Trib.) wherein it was held that registration should not be denied on errors of :-3-: ITA 2411/Chny/2025 mere technicalities and Surat Bench in N.J.Charitable Foundation vs CIT(E) in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 21 (Surat-Trib.), wherein, the delay of filing the relevant application u/s.80G of the Act was condoned by the Tribunal. The Ld.AR prayed that the delay in filing the application may be condoned.

Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the views taken by the ld.CIT(E) and argued that the rejection is justified. The Ld.DR further submitted that when the law is explicit in not providing the ld.CIT(E) with the power to condone the delay in filing relevant application u/s.80G, while expressly providing the powers of condoning the delay when it comes to section 12AB of the Act, the action of the ld.CIT(E) is perfectly in order. The Ld.DR thus prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(E). We find that the sole issue for consideration before us is that whether the assessee is eligible for the approval u/s.80G of the Act or not.

We find that the application has been made under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub section 5 of section 80G of the Act, which reads as under, “where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier”. It can be seen that w.e.f. 01.10.2024 vide Finance(No.2) Act, 2024, Clause (iv) reads as under: “(in any other case) where activities of the institution or fund have-- (A) not commenced, at least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year from which the said approval is sought;

The Legislature, in its wisdom had chosen to omit the rigorous conditions that originally stood prior to the amendment. It can be seen that it is an enabling amendment, wherein any charitable institution, where its activities have commenced and where, even if it had claimed income exemptions specific to charitable institution, can still apply for registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act. Accordingly, it permits any assessee, which had missed the timeline specified under clause (iii), to apply under clause (iv) sub clause (B) of the 1st proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 80G of the Act.

With this observation, in the interest of justice, we direct the ld.CIT(E) to treat the application made on 21.12.2024 under clause (iii) of 1st proviso to subsection 5 of section 80G of the Act, as an application made under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of 1st proviso to sub-section 5 of section 80G of the Act and verify all other conditions stipulated under the Act for grant of registration u/s.80G of the Act and accordingly dispose of the application on merits, in accordance with law. For the purpose of the time limit within which the application must be disposed of by the ld.CIT(E), as per 4th

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