Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a trust, filed an application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but it was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) due to being filed 63 days late. The assessee contended that there was a bonafide mistake in understanding the approval dates.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the application was initially filed under a clause that did not allow condonation of delay for Section 80G applications, an amendment to the Act (effective from 01.10.2024) introduced a new clause (iv) which permits such applications. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application as filed under the amended clause and decide on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the application for approval under Section 80G can be condoned, especially in light of subsequent legislative amendments.
Sections Cited
80G, 11AA, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”), rejecting the approval sought u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
The assessee is a trust and filed an application dated 02.09.2024 in Form 10AB under Rule 11AA, seeking approval under (iii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Act. The CIT(E) rejected the said application dated 02.09.2024 on the sole ground of delay in filing the application by 63 days. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The case of the ld.CIT(E) is as follows: The assessee had obtained its provisional approval u/s.80G of the Act in Form 10AC dated 20.02.2022 from :-2-: ITA. No:931/Chny/2025 20.02.2022 to A.Y.2024-25. Accordingly, the application for approval u/s.80G in Form 10AB in terms of clause (iii) of proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act ought to have been filed on or before 30.09.2023, which is 6 months prior to 31.03.2024 pertaining to Previous Year 2023-24 and Assessment Year 2024-25. Further, CBDT vide circular no.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 extended the time limit to 30.06.2024; yet the assessee had filed the application for approval u/s.80G only on 02.09.2024, with a delay of 63 days. There is no provision in the Act to condone the delay in filing Form 10AB seeking approval u/s.80G, though the Act provides the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10AB seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act.
Before the ld.CIT(E), the assessee contended that there was a bonafide mistake in understanding the approval dates. The period of approval specifying the last date as “A.Y.2024-25” was misunderstood as 31.03.2025 and hence the renewal application was made on 02.09.2024, which is 6 months within 31.03.2025, in terms of clause (iii) of proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act. The starting date was specified as 20.02.2022, while the ending date was specified as A.Y.2024-25 and this has caused the confusion in understanding the period for which the approval exists. Further, the assessee had contended that the forms were filed without taking any professional help and the assessee, on its own, through its employees, had filed the same. Hence, the benefit of interpretation of the approval dates were not available to the assessee. Despite the assessee’s explanation, the ld.CIT(E) had rejected the application and hence the present appeal.
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 mere technicalities and Surat Bench in N.J.Charitable Foundation vs CIT(E) in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 21 (Surat-Trib.), wherein, the :-3-: ITA. No:931/Chny/2025 delay of filing the relevant application u/s.80G 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, 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 or not.
We find that the application has been made under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub section 5 of section 80G, 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; (B) commenced (and where no income or part thereof of the said institution or fund has been excluded from the total income on account of applicability of sub-clause (iv) or sub- clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 or section 11 or section 12 for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application), at any time after the commencement of such activities: (the words that are struck off are omitted vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.)”
:-4-: ITA. No:931/Chny/2025
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. Consequent to this amendment, if the assessee applies under clause (iv) today, subject to the fulfilment of other conditions, would not be ineligible for the approval, owing to the limitation of time which is specific to clause (iii). Albeit, at the time of applying for registration on 02.09.2024, the benefit of (iv) was not available to the assessee and the only clause, under which it could apply, was clause (iii), yet, post the amendment from 01.10.2024, it is eligible to apply under clause (iv).
With this observation, in the interest of justice, we direct the ld.CIT(E) to treat the application made on 02.09.2024 under clause (iii) of 1st proviso to subsection 5 of section 80G, 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 proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, the starting point must be the date on which this order is served to the revenue.
:-5-: ITA. No:931/Chny/2025
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 12th September, 2025 at Chennai.