Loading judgment…
Facts
Sankalp Foundation applied to the CIT(E) for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) dismissed the application, citing that the applicant's provisional registration u/s 80G(5)(iv) had expired, there was a delay in filing, and activities had not commenced.
Held
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application u/s 80G(5)(iii) afresh. The CIT(E) was directed to take into account relevant CBDT circulars regarding provisional approval and registration validity, and provide the applicant an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) correctly dismissed the application for 80G(5)(iii) approval due to expired provisional registration and delay in filing, without considering relevant CBDT circulars regarding the validity of registrations and provisional approvals. Also, the ground of non-commencement of activities lacked detailed discussion.
Sections Cited
80G(5), 12A(1)(ac)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member, Appellant was applicant before Learned CIT(E), in its application submitted on 23.11.2024, for approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. Said application has been dismissed, while observing in the impugned order that the applicant was provisionally registered earlier on 07.04.2022, u/s 80G(5)(iv), for a period only up to the assessment year 2024-25, and the said provisional registration expired in March, 2024.
Sankalp Foundation, Kota. Learned CIT(E) was not convinced with the reply submitted by the applicant in this regard, and he observed that he had no power to condone the delay in filing of the application. Consequently, he held that the application u/s 80G(5)(iii) was not maintainable. Learned CIT(E) also rejected the application on another ground i.e. non commencement of activities by the applicant.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Ld. AR for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the applicant stands registered u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) for 5 years. Ld. AR has further submitted that as per Circular No. 11 of 2022 issued by CBDT on 03.06.2022, where, due to technical glitches Form No. 10AC was issued during financial year 2021-22, with the heading ‘ order for provisional approval’ instead of the heading ‘order for approval’, all such Forms 10AC were to be considered as “Order for approval”. Again vide Circular No. 06/2023 dated 24.05.2023, CBDT clarified that the trust already in existence were required to apply afresh for registration/approval, and further that once registered, same would be valid for 5 years. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that Learned CIT(E) be directed to consider the order dated 7.4.2022, granting Sankalp Foundation, Kota. provisional approval u/s 80G(5), as order for approval under the said provision, for 5 years, i.e. upto the assessment year 2027-28.