Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant society's application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the CIT(E) on the sole ground of lacking registration under Section 12AB. Simultaneously, another application for registration under Section 12AB was also rejected.
Held
The Tribunal, acknowledging a bonafide mistake by the AR in filing a single appeal for two orders, restored the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the 80G(5)(iii) application due to lack of 12AB registration was justified, and if the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to bonafide mistake.
Sections Cited
80G(5)(iii), 12AB, 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER .
Present appeal came to be presented on 25.07.2025, while challenging order dated 19.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(E) rejecting an application filed by the applicant society, seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Said application was submitted online on 12.06.2024.
Women Children Welfare and Rural Development Society, Ajmer. Learned CIT(E) rejected the same on the sole ground that the applicant society had no registration u/s 12AB of the Act. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(E) further directed that the provisional approval already granted under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Act, was also being cancelled. Hence, this appeal.
As per deficiency note raised by the Registry, present appeal came to be presented on 147 days after the prescribed period of limitation.
To seek condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, applicant society has submitted an application. So, firstly, arguments have been advanced on the application seeking condonation of delay.
It may be mentioned here that another order of the same date i.e. 19.12.2024 was also passed by Learned CIT(E), rejecting another application of the applicant society presented for registration u/s 12AB of the Act. On appeal, this Appellate Tribunal has already restored said application to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh. Ld. AR for the applicant has submitted that copy of impugned order dated 19.12.2024 was received on the very next day i.e. 20.12.2024, but no appeal challenging the impugned order could be filed, while challenging another order of the same date i.e. 19.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(E), Women Children Welfare and Rural Development Society, Ajmer. rejecting another application of the applicant society presented for registration u/s 12AB of the Act.
Admittedly, the applicant society had submitted two separate applications before Learned CIT(E) i.e. one seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act, and the other application seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. No doubt, both applications came to be rejected by Learned CIT(E) on 19.12.2024, it appears that due to bonafide mistake, no separate appeal challenging order u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act could be filed before this Appellate Tribunal. We believe the Ld. AR for the applicant, when he has tried to explain that he was under the impression that both the orders could be challenged by one of appeal has both the orders were of the same date. He has also drawn our attention to copy of order dated 23.07.2025, passed by this Appellate Tribunal in whereby application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act was restored to the files of Learned CIT(E) for decision afresh, affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant society, of course in accordance with law. Except the bonafide mistake on the part of the AR of the appellant, we do not see any other reason for not challenging the impugned order by filing another appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
Women Children Welfare and Rural Development Society, Ajmer.
It is not in dispute that the other application U/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act stands restored to the files of Learned CIT(E), for decision afresh. Application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, which has given rise to present appeal, came to be rejected on the sole ground that the applicant society was without registration u/s 12AB of the Act. With the restoration of the other application u/s 12AB of the Act, application u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act also deserves to be restored to its original number for decision afresh. Result 7. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes and, while setting aside the impugned order, the application filed by the applicant society u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act is restored to its original number. Learned CIT(E) to dispose of the application afresh in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant society. It may be mentioned here that on behalf of the applicant, an application seeking production of additional evidence came to be filed on 03.09.2025 before the Registry.