Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT(E) solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No. 10AB. The assessee contended that the delay was inadvertent and sought condonation.
Held
The Tribunal held that the timelines for filing applications under section 80G(5) are directory in nature, and rejection based on pure technicalities of delay is not justified. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the delayed application.
Key Issues
Whether rejection of an application for registration under section 80G(5) solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No. 10AB is justified, or if the timelines are directory and condonable.
Sections Cited
80G(5), 10AB, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
In this case, appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commisioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune passed under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ON 16.09.2025. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') it be kindly held that the order passed by the CIT(E), Pune, rejecting the Appellants application for seeking registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act, solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No. 10AB, is against the [A] provisions and scheme of the Act. Accordingly, the delay so caused in filing Form No. 10AB be kindly condoned and the Ld. CIT(E) be directed to grant the registration/approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act to the Appellant. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.
2. 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.
3. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal
at the time of hearing.” Findings & Analysis :
2. 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. [A]
In view of the above, the application dated 28/02/2025 filed by the assessee in Form 10AB is hereby rejected without going into the merits of the case.”
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 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.
9.0 We have noted that the facts of the present case are identical to those as in dated 03.10.2025 and in 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 3 ITA No.2321/PUN/2025 [A] proviso to section 80G and decide in accordance with law. The assessee shall be entitled to be granted due opportunities of being heard and shall be bounden to comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Revenue. In view of the above, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”
3.1 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 Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 28 Nov, 2025/ SGR 4 [A]