Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was rejected by the CIT(E) for being filed after the due date. The assessee argued that its initial application was filed within the time limit, but was rejected for using the wrong clause, and the second application was filed promptly thereafter.
Held
The Tribunal found that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the second application. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to decide the application afresh on merits after condoning the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the second application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justifiable and whether the application should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
80G, 147, 148, 143(3)
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, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.04.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“CIT(E)”] whereby he rejected the application of the assessee filed before him on 07.10.2024 in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “Ground No 1: Rejection of Application on technical reasons without appreciating the genuineness of the activities carried by the Appellant 1.1 The learned CIT Exemptions erred in law and facts of the case in rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB on 07. October 2024 by merely concluding that the application was filed after the statutory deadline i.e.,
30. June 2024 without taking into consideration that the first application filed was within the time line. 1.2 The learned CIT Exemptions erred in law without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had filed the first application in Form 10AB on 19. April 2024, however the same was rejected vide order dated
25. September 2024 for statistical purposes without going into the merits of the case and no adverse inference was drawn against the Appellant. Hence the Appellant reapplied by filing form 10AB on 07. October 2024. Ground No 2: Merits of the case
2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration without appreciating the evidence and submissions made by the Appellant which establishes the genuineness of its charitable activities and compliance with statutory requirements. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.”
3. The brief facts are that on receipt of the assessee’s application filed in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act along with annexures thereto, with a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and fulfillment of the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notice on 27.11.2024 through ITBA portal/email requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification contained therein by 16.12.2024. On verification of the details/documents filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) noticed various discrepancies which were communicated vide issue of another notice dated 18.02.2025 seeking compliance by 25.02.2025. The said discrepancies are reproduced below : "(i) The note on activities provided by you is general and lacks specificity. Please resubmit a detailed note on each activity, including the name and location of the activities, details of beneficiaries, how they were identified, and supporting credible evidence such as photographs, copies of bills/invoices, receipts of expenses incurred, and also medical documents/prescriptions from the relevant hospital/doctor for medical assistance. (ii) Regarding the donations given to other trusts, please provide the details of such trusts, including a copy of their trust deed, details of their activities, and whether the recipient trust has regular registration under sections 12A and 80G. Additionally, confirm if the objective of donating to other trusts is mentioned in your trust deed. (iii) From the financial statements, it is seen that you have income from rent, vivah suchi, marriage registration fees, ambulance charges. Explain these incomes as it appears to be commercial in nature. Also, it is observed that only minimal expenses have been incurred on activities, with a major portion of income carried forward as surplus. Furthermore, no expenses were incurred in FY 2022- 23 and FY 2023-24, according to the financial statements. Please provide an explanation for these observations. (iv) Without prejudice to the above, it is also seen that the date of expiry of provisional approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act in your case is 31/03/2024. As per the provisions of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, where a trust or institution has been provisionally approved under section 80G(5) (vi) of the Act, the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(vi) is required to be filed, at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional approval or within six months from the date of commencement of activities. Since, the period of provisional approval was due to expire on 31/03/2024, the present application was required to be filed before 30/09/2023. The extended due date for filing of such application was 30/06/2024 as per CBDT, Circular No. 7/2024, dated 25/04/2024. However, the present application filed by you is on 07/10/2024 i.e. after the expiry of period allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. Thus, it is seen that you have 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. (v) Further, it is seen from your reply that the date of commencement of your activities is 09/10/1986. Further, as per the copy of order of provisional approval under section 80G(5) (vi) read with clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 submitted by you, the date of provisional approval is 24/09/2021. As per the provisions of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where a trust or institution has been provisionally approved under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act, the application for regular approval under section 80G(5) (vi) is required to be filed within 6 months from the date of commencement of activities. Since, your activities were already commenced as on the date of provisional approval, you were required to file the present application within 6 months from the date of provisional approval i.e. on or before 23/03/2022. The extended due date for filing of such application was 30/06/2024 as per CBDT, Circular No. 7/2024, dated 25/04/2024. Thus, it is seen that you have 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.”
3.1 The assessee furnished its reply to the above notice on 26.02.2025. After considering the reply of the assessee, specifically with reference to the discrepancies pointed out, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee and also cancelled the provisional registration granted earlier by observing as under: “6. The assessee furnished its reply in response to the notice on 26/02/2025. On the issue of delay the assessee has stated as under: "a) As per CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, dated 25/04/2024, the extended due date for filing the application for registration under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was 30/06/2024, It is pertinent to note that the present application, filed on 07/10/2024, constitutes a second application wherein registration under clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act has been sought, b) Previously, Form IOAB was filed on 19/04/2024 for registration under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. Upon receiving the rejection order in form IOAD on 25/09/2024 for selecting the incorrect clause (ii), we filed fresh form IOAB application on 07/10/2024 for registration under clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5). c) In view of the above, it is evident that the initial application filed on 19/04/2024 was well within the extended due date of 30/06/2024, as prescribed under CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, dated 25/04/2024. d) In support of the above, the following documents are annexed: 1) Copy of Form IOAB filed on 19/04/2024 as Annexure-4(i) 2) Copy of Rejection Order in Form IOAD dated 25/09/2024 as Annexure-4(ii)." “6.1 The assessee's contention is duly considered. It is, however not acceptable considering the following: As it seen from the submissions that the date of expiry of provisional approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act in the assessee's case is 31/03/2024. As per the provisions of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, where a trust or institution has been provisionally approved under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act, the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(iv) is required to be filed, at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional approval or within six months from the date of commencement of activities. Since, the period of provisional approval was due to expire on 31/03/2024, the present application was required to be filed before 30/09/2023. However, the present application filed by the assessee is on 07/10/2024 i.e. after the expiry of period allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. The extended due date for filing of such application was 30/06/2024 as per CBDT, Circular No 7/2024 dated 25/04/2024. The assessee filed its application in form 10AB on 01710/2024 i.e. after the extended time limit. Further, it is also seen from the submissions that the activities were already commenced i.e. from FY 1987-88. 6.2 Further, as per the copy of order of provisional approval under section 80G(5) read with clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the date of provisional approval is 24/09/2021. As per the provisions of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where a trust or institution has been provisionally approved under section 80G(5) (iv) of the Act, the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(iv) is required to be filed within 6 months from the date of commencement of activities. Since, the activities were already commenced as on the date of provisional approval, the trust was required to file the present application within 6 months from the date of provisional approval i.e. on or before 23/03/2022. The extended time limit as per CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024 was 30/06/2024. However, the present application filed by the trust is on 07/10/2024 i.e. after the expiry of period under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. Thus, it is seen that the assessee has failed to file the present application within the time limit allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. In view of the above, the present application 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.
8. In view of the above, the application dated 07/10/2024 in form 10AB filed by the assessee is hereby rejected.”
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed two applications with the Ld. CIT(E) for registration u/s 80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the earlier application (first application) of the assessee for statistical purpose without going into the merits of the case and drawing any adverse interference thereon against the assessee. He submitted that the present application under challenge is the second application filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the present application (second application) merely concluding that the application was filed by the assessee after the due date i.e. 30.06.2024. However, the first application was filed within the due date but inadvertently under the wrong clause. The assessee made its submissions on the issue of delay in filing the application before the Ld. CIT(E) (para 6 of the Ld. CIT(E)’s order refers). However, the contention of the assessee was not found to be acceptable by the Ld. CIT(E) and he rejected the application of the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee also made detailed submissions in support of the genuineness of the charitable activities carried out by the assessee and compliance with other statutory requirements but the same has not been considered by the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Shalom Education Centre Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune in for AY 2024-25, dated 25.07.2025 and submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) may be directed to condone the delay and decide the impugned application of the assessee on merits.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E). However, he had no serious objection to the above request of the Ld. AR.
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material on record. We have also perused the paper book filed by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee as well as the judicial precedents cited before us. Admittedly, there was delay in filing the present application before the Ld. CIT(E) which constrained him to reject the application of the assessee on account of such delay for the reasons already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the present application is the second application filed by the assessee on 07.10.2024 but the same has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on the ground of delay in filing the application and without deciding the application on merits. The assessee had filed first application on 19.04.2024 which was well within the prescribed statutory time limit. However, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the same vide his order dated 25.09.2024 (pages 7 to 11 of the paper book refers) for statistical purpose without going into the merits of the case and without drawing any adverse interference against the assessee. We find that soon after rejection of the first application, the assessee refiled the present application on 07.10.2024. It was on account of this reason that the impugned application (second application) could not be filed within the statutory time period i.e. by 30.06.2024. The Ld. AR has therefore prayed for condonation of the delay in filing of the application and decision afresh on merits of the case.
We find some force in the contention of the Ld. AR. In our view, there was a sufficient cause which led to the delay in filing of the impugned application (second application) for registration u/s 80G of the Act. We have perused the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Shalom Education Centre (supra). Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 382 wherein it is held that the merits of the case have to be examined and it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to his file with a direction to treat the application as filed in time and decide the application afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in light of the decision (supra) of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice, to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the impugned application for registration u/s 80G of the Act and to decide it afresh on merits as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide full support to the Ld. CIT(E) in terms of filing the requisite details/documents/evidence as may be required/called upon by the Ld. CIT(E) on the appointed date without taking any adjournment under any pretext whatsoever unless required for a sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2025.