Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 80G(5) of the Act on 19.11.2024. The assessee had previously filed an application on 28.09.2024 but withdrew it due to a typographical error in the section code. The CIT rejected the subsequent application citing delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the original application was filed within the prescribed time limit. The CIT failed to consider the filing of the original application and its subsequent withdrawal due to error. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G(5) solely on the grounds of delay without considering the original filing and subsequent withdrawal due to a clerical error.
Sections Cited
80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Om Sai Ram Charitable Vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Trust, ‘Mangalam’ Near Youth Hostel, Vishrambaug Colony, Padampura, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, Maharashtra- 431001. PAN : AAATO8659H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Alok R. Singh (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Rakesh Jha Date of hearing : 13.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act.
Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act on 19.11.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act, notices were issued through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification. The assessee in response to above notices furnished desired information as mentioned in the notices. After verifying these details, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune dismissed the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act by observing as under :- “7.2 Without prejudice to the above, it is seen that the date of expiry of provisional approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act in the instant case is 31/03/2025. 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, whichever is earlier. Since, the period of provisional approval was due to expire on 31/03/2025, the present application was required to be filed before 30/09/2024. However, the present application filed is on 19/11/2024 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 the assessee did 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 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.
In view of the above, the application dated 19/11/2024 filed by the assessee in Form 10AB is hereby rejected without going into the merits of the case.”
3. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee was provisionally approved u/s 80G(5)(iv) of the Act upto 31.03.2025 and was supposed to apply for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act prior to six months from the expiry of provisional approval i.e. on or before 30.09.2024. Accordingly, the assessee applied for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act on 28.09.2024 i.e. well within the time limit. However, the assessee withdrew the above application on 19.11.2024 since due to an inadvertent typing error wrong section code was selected. Ld. AR further submitted that on the same day i.e. on 19.11.2024 itself the assessee again furnished a fresh application for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act wherein correct section code was selected. Ld. AR submitted that under the above facts of the case Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have condoned the delay and should have decided the application on merits of the case. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune to consider the application on merits of the case.
Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly the provisional approval was valid upto 31.03.2025 and the assessee was required to file application for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act prior to six months from the expiry of the provisional approval i.e. on or before 30.09.2024. We further find that the assessee filed an application for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act on 28.09.2024 but the same was withdrawn by the assessee on 19.11.2024 since due to typographical error wrong section code was selected. We also find that the assessee immediately after withdrawing the original application on 19.11.2024 again furnished the impugned application for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act under correct section code. We further find that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the impugned application on the ground of apparent delay.
However, we also find that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has neither considered the fact of filing of original application on 28.09.2024 nor considered the fact of withdrawal of the same due to wrong section code.
In view of our above discussion, we find some force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the original application was filed within the time limit prescribed under the Act and Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have taken this fact into consideration before rejecting the new application without going into merits of the case.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the issue back to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and produce requisite documents/information in support of the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act without taking any adjournment under any