VIDYASANMATIDAS SEVA SANSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. CIT(E), PUNE

Without prejudice to above ground, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act, it be kindly held that the Ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act without properly perusing and considering the documents and submissions made by the Appellant particularly when Appellant's simultaneous application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act was accepted. Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) be kindly set aside with direction to grant registration. Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.

The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(Exemption) has rejected the assessee’s’ application for registration u/s.80G of the Act vide order dated 16.09.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the order of ld.CIT(Exemption) are reproduced here as under “8. In view of the above, the present application dated 28/02/2025 filed in Form NO.10AB under clause(iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) OF THE Act is liable to be rejected without going into the merits since the assessee has not filed the present application within the time limit allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.2321/PUN/2025 [A]

Thus, ld.CIT(Exemption) rejected application only on the ground that assessee had not filed application within the time mentioned under the section. However, it is observed that on identical facts, ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Mother Leela Trust Vs. CIT(E) in ITA No.1408/CHNY/2025 has allowed the assessee’s appeal. The relevant paragraph is reproduced here as under : “8.0 Thus, the uniform view taken by this tribunal on the issue is that, considering the amendment by the Finance Bill 2024, the applications u/s 80G(5) after the due date can be considered within the meanings of the section 80G(5)(iv). We have also noted that the decision of the Coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of CIT-1982 Charitable Trust supra which has gone to conclude that the timelines u/s 80G(5) are directory in nature and that therefore any rejection of delayed applications by CIT(E) would be merely a case of reliance on pure technicalities.

0 We have noted that the facts of the present case are identical to those as in ITA No.1127/Chny/2025 dated 03.10.2025 and in ITA No.1012/Chny/2025 dated 25.07.2025 supra and no distinguishment was pointed out by the Revenue. Accordingly, in respectful compliance to the aforesaid orders of this tribunal and for the purposes of consistencies, we direct the Ld.CIT(E) to treat the delayed application filed by the assessee as having been filed under clause-(iv) of the first

1 Similar view has been taken by ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Madras Chinmaya Seva Trust vs. CIT(E) in ITA No.885/CHNY/2025. Ld.AR filed copies of this order.

Respectfully following the judicial precedence, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee shall file necessary documents before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28 November, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE

गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER,