GANDHINAGAR MALAYALEE SAMAJAM ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Ɋायपीठ “ B”, अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
]
]
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.467/Ahd/2025
िनधाŊरण वषŊ /Assessment Year : NA
Gandhinagar Malayalee
Samajam,
Plot No.473/1,
Sector-12/B,
Gandhinagar-382016. (Gujarat)
बनाम/
v/s.
The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption),
Ahmedabad.
̾थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AACTG1489K
अपीलाथŎ/ (Appellant)
Ů̝ यथŎ/ (Respondent)
Assessee by :
Shri Mehul K Patel, AR
Revenue by :
Shri R P Rastogi, Sr-DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/08/2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/08/2025
आदेश/O R D E R
PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:
]
]
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad
[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] dated 17.09.2024 passed under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], whereby the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB seeking approval under section 80G of the Act was rejected as non- maintainable.
2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 90 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit sworn by Shri M. N. Sasi Menon, Trustee, affirming that he is 71 years of age, not conversant with income-tax matters, nor operating computers or accessing the income-tax portal. The affidavit explains that the assessee came to know about rejection of its application only in January 2025 through trustees of other similar trusts.
Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached its Chartered
Accountant and later entrusted the matter to an advocate at Ahmedabad to file the present appeal. The delay thus occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances.
The learned Departmental Representative (DR) raised no objection to the condonation of delay. Considering the affidavit, the circumstances explained, and the settled law that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 90 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
Facts of the Case
The assessee filed application in Form No. 10AB seeking approval under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. The learned CIT(E) noted that as per section 80G(5)(iv)(B), approval is available only if the activities of the trust have not commenced at least one month before commencement of the previous year, or the activities have commenced but no exemption has been claimed u/ss. 10/11/12 or 23C in any earlier year. On verification of CPC portal, the CIT(E) observed that the assessee had already claimed exemption under section 11 in the past assessment years. Since exemption had already been claimed under section 11, the CIT(E) held that the conditions of section 80G(5)(iv)(B) were violated and accordingly, the application was rejected as non-maintainable.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT (Exemption) has grievously erred in rejecting the application for approval u/s. 80G (5) (iv) (B) of the Act as non-maintainable.
That on facts and in law, the appellant made a bona fide error in selecting sub-clause (iv) instead of sub-clause (ii) of section 80G(5) of the Act.
That on facts, and in law, learned CIT (Exemption) be directed to consider the application under the correct provisions of section 80G(5) (ii) of the Act and decide on merits.
The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.
The learned AR submitted that the assessee, while filing Form 10AB, had inadvertently mentioned the wrong section i.e. sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of section 80G(5) instead of the correct clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). The error was purely technical. It was further submitted that the assessee-trust had been carrying out charitable activities and filing its return of income under section 11. Therefore, the rejection reason cited by the CIT(E) is not applicable Ahmedabad, Dated 22/08/2025
Manish, Sr. PS
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ ) अपील ( / The CIT(Exemption)-Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाडŊ फाईल /Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
सȑािपत Ůित ////
सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.