Loading judgment…
Facts
Six assessees had their applications for renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejected by the CIT(E). In the lead case, the rejection was due to a minor mistake in quoting the sub-clause of Section 80G, and the assessees appealed against this rejection.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on a Co-ordinate Bench decision, held that a simple mistake in quoting the sub-clause of Section 80G is not fatal to render an application invalid. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) in all six cases and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to consider the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting applications for approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) based on a minor error in quoting the relevant sub-clause of Section 80G or in rejecting provisional registration.
Sections Cited
80G(5)(iv)(B), 80G, 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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.