POOJA PARIWAR SEVA TRUST VADODARA,VADODARA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1929/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 February 20255 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) was not justified. Following the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust (ITA No. 1928/Ahd/2024), the Tribunal found that a mistake in quoting the relevant clause of Section 80G (specifically, quoting clause (iii) instead of clause (iv)) is not fatal to the application and should not render it invalid. The reasoning was that such a mistake is a "simple mistake" and not a fundamental flaw. Therefore, the CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the applications afresh. The ratio decidendi is that minor clerical or quoting errors in statutory references should not lead to the outright rejection of an application for approval under Section 80G, especially when provisional approval was granted. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters to his file for de novo consideration, granting the assessees an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

Six trusts, Pooja Pariwar Seva Trust, Ojas Foundation, Nikir Care Foundation, Nirdesh Education and Research Foundation, Vidyamandir Education Trust, and Gangotri Charitable Trust, filed appeals against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected their applications for approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessees had previously been granted provisional approval. The appeals were heard together as they involved common grounds. The lead case, Pooja Pariwar Seva Trust (ITA No. 1929/Ahd/2024), involved the rejection of its renewal application under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B). The assessee contended that the rejection was erroneous. The Departmental Representative did not object to restoring the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in law and facts by rejecting the application for registration under Section 10AD of the Act? (This ground appears to be a typo in the judgment, as the operative section discussed is 80G, not 10AD. The Tribunal's decision focuses on Section 80G). 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in law and facts by rejecting the provisional registration which was granted earlier? Assessee's Contentions: The assessees argued that the rejection of their applications by the CIT(E) was erroneous. In the lead case, the Authorized Representative relied on a Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust (ITA No. 1928/Ahd/2024). This decision held that a mistake in quoting a clause (e.g., quoting clause (iii) instead of (iv) of Section 80G) is not fatal to the application and directed the CIT(E) to consider the application de novo. The assessees requested the matter be restored to the CIT(E)'s file. Revenue's Contentions: The Departmental Representative did not object to restoring the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(iv)(B),Section 10AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 19/02/2025Pronounced: 20/02/2025

These six appeals have been filed by the different Assessees against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”], rejecting the approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. Since all these appeals were heard together, we proceed to dispose of all these appeals of the Assessees by a consolidated order.

2. The assessees have taken the following common grounds of appeal(s):

“1. The Ld.CIT erred in law and in the facts of the case in rejecting the application for registration u/s.10AD of the Act.

2.

The Ld.CIT erred in law and in the facts of the case in rejecting the provisional registration which was granted earlier.”

3. First, we shall take up the assessee’s appeal in as lead case.

& 5 Others Pooja Pariwar Seva Trust & five Others vs. CIT(E)

3 Facts of the Case:

3.

The assessee, Pooja Pariwar Seva Trust, applied for renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Act by filing Form 10AB. The assessee was granted provisional approval under the said section.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us, contending that CIT(E) has rejected the application.

5.

During the course of hearing before us, the Authorized Representative (AR) relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust Dakor (in wherein the Co- ordinate Bench held that such mistake is not fatal to treat the application as invalid and ld.CIT(E) was directed to consider the application of the assessee and pass on order de-novo. The AR requested to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(E). The Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to restoring the matter back to the file of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that the Coordinate Bench has allowed the appeal of the assessee in (Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust vs. CIT) vide order dated 17/01/2025. The relevant para of the said order, reads as under:

“4. The application of the assessee has been rejected owing to a simple mistake of quoting clause (iii) instead of clause (iv) of Section 80G of the Income-tax Act. Such mistake is not fatal to treat the application as invalid and hence ld.CIT(E) is directed to consider the application of the assessee and pass an order de-novo.”

& 5 Others Pooja Pariwar Seva Trust & five Others vs. CIT(E)

6.1. Considering the facts and following the order of Co-ordinate Bench, we set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restore the matter back to his file to consider the application of the assessee and pass on order de-novo. Accordingly, the appeal in is allowed for statistical purposes.

(in the case of Ojas Foundation), the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is duly explained as the trustee was out of India and took necessary steps upon return. As the delay is bona fide and not due to negligence, it is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

6.4. Since all other appeals (ITA Nos.1933/Ahd/2024, 1940/Ahd/2024, 1978/Ahd/2024 and 1979/Ahd/2024) involve identical issues, following the order of Co-ordinate Bench in Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust vs. CIT (supra), we set aside the orders of the CIT(E) in all five cases and restore the matters back to his files. The CIT(E) is directed to duly consider the applications afresh, after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessees.

7.

In the combined result, all the six appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th February, 2025 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(iv)(B)

All 68 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →