BHABNA,KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXMPTION), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that since the assessee was an old Trust and had secured 12AB approval, its 80G application should have been under Section 80G(5)(i) for existing trusts. Following the `Nitdaa Foundation` case, the Tribunal considered filing under the wrong clause a curable defect, set aside the CIT(E)'s order, and remanded the matter for reconsideration as if filed under Section 80G(5)(i) for approval.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an old Trust formed on 03.11.2017, appealed against the CIT (Exemption)'s order denying its application for 80G registration. The application was filed late (06.07.2024 against an extended deadline of 30.06.2024) and incorrectly under Section 80G(5)(iii) for new trusts, despite the Trust having commenced activities in FY 2021-22. The assessee also sought condonation of delay for filing the appeal before the ITAT, citing various issues like lack of technical expertise, auditor's health, and system errors.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in denying 80G registration due to late filing and application under the wrong sub-clause (new vs. old trust); whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 80G,Section 80G(iv),Section 80G(5),Section 80G(5)(i),Section 80G(5)(iii),Section 12A,Section 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Nitdaa Foundation v. CIT17 citing167 Taxmann.com 111 · 2024 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT (Exemption)/Ld. CIT(E)’] passed in respect of registration u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.01.2025. 2. Though the Registry has not informed about the delay in filing of the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee has filed an application dated 12.02.2025 in which the reasons for the delay are mentioned as lack of technical expertise and awareness, health issue of the Auditor, system errors during submission attempts, completion of audit for FY 2
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Pushpa Devi Sobhasaria Foundation, Kolkata vs CIT(Exemption), KolkataKolkata23 Oct 2025Remanded
Also relies on Nitdaa Foundation v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application as time-barred and on an incorrect appreciation of facts. Citing a similar case, it clarified that as an existing trust, the assessee should have appli...
- Skilletz Foundation, Pune vs Commissioner of Income Tax- Exemption, PunePune18 Sept 2025Remanded
Also relies on Nitdaa Foundation v. CIT
The Tribunal found that the application was rejected solely on a technical error regarding the wrong section code, with no adverse findings on merits. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order...
- Shri Vardhaman Sthanakwasi Jain Shrawak… vs CIT (Exemption), PunePune18 Sept 2025Remanded
Also relies on Nitdaa Foundation v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application by the CIT was based on a technical ground of selecting the wrong clause, and that on merits, no adverse findings were made against the assessee. Following a coordi...
- The Umrao Institute of Medical Science and… vs CIT Exemption, ThanePune7 May 2025Remanded
Also relies on Nitdaa Foundation v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the incorrect mention of a section code was a curable defect. Following a precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
- Arun Aashray, Pune vs CIT Central Circle 1(1), PunePune29 Apr 2025Remanded
Also relies on Nitdaa Foundation v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong clause in the application was a technical defect and that the application should be treated as filed under the correct clause. The matter was restored to the CIT(E...
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
