VIDYAMANDIR EDUCATION TRUST,VADODARA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1978/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 noted that the Assessees' appeals involved common grounds and identical issues. The Tribunal referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust vs. CIT (ITA No.1928/Ahd/2024), dated 17/01/2025. In that case, the co-ordinate bench held that a simple mistake of quoting clause (iii) instead of clause (iv) of Section 80G was not fatal to treat the application as invalid. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application de novo. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) in all six appeals. The matters were restored to the CIT(E)'s file with a direction to consider the applications afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard to the Assessees. The appeal in ITA No.1930/Ahd/2024 also involved a delay of 11 days in filing, which was condoned as bona fide. All six appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

Six appeals were filed by different Assessees against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected the approval applications under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessees are Pooja Pariwar Seva Trust, Ojas Foundation, Nikir Care Foundation, Nirdesh Education and Research Foundation, Vidyamandir Education Trust, and Gangotri Charitable Trust. The appeals were heard together. The Assessees' grounds of appeal relate to the rejection of their applications for registration under Section 10AD and the rejection of provisional registration previously granted. The appeals were filed against orders passed by the CIT(E) for assessment year NA.

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? 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in law and facts by rejecting the provisional registration that was previously granted? Assessee's Contentions: The Assessees argued that the rejection of their applications was erroneous. In the lead case (ITA No.1929/Ahd/2024), the Authorized Representative (AR) relied on a co-ordinate bench decision in the case of Sant Vijaydasji Sevashram Trust Dakor (ITA No.1928/Ahd/2024). This decision held that a simple mistake of quoting an incorrect clause (clause (iii) instead of clause (iv) of Section 80G) was not fatal to the application's validity and directed the CIT(E) to consider the application de novo. The AR requested the matter be restored to the CIT(E)'s file. Revenue's Contentions: The Departmental Representative (DR) 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 →