PREM KIRAN CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2133/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 February 2026AY 2026-2027Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Prem Kiran Charitable Trust. Gate No.3, 6th Floor, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kol- 700001.. [PAN: ΑΑΕΤP9565H] CIT (Exemption), Kolkata.. PRB Foundation.... Gate No.3, 6th Floor, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kol- 700001.. [PAN: AAFTP4022N] CIT (Exemption), Kolkata... Appearances by: Shri S. K. Pransukha, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, CIT- DR, appeared on behalf of t1 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 assessee had obtained provisional registration and commenced activities. The error in mentioning the clause was due to inadvertence and unawareness of new laws. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, filed for regular registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act in Form 10AB. The initial application was made on 10.08.2024 with an incorrect clause, and a fresh application was filed on 27.02.2025. The CIT(E) rejected the application, stating it was filed beyond the time limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the application for regular registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) was justified on grounds of being filed beyond the prescribed time limit, considering the inadvertent error in the initial application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(ii),Section 80G(5)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

order : February 10, 2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: Both the present appeals have been preferred by the different assessees against separate orders both dated 14.08.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(E)’] rejecting the separate applications filed in Form 10AB for final approval as per the provisions of section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) respectively. Since both the & appeals relate to the same set of facts therefore, these appeals were heard together and we are going to dispose of these appeals by passing a consolidated order.

is taken as lead case for narration of facts.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee being a charitable trust filed an application on 27.02.2025 for regular registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act in Form 10AB but the same was rejected by the ld. CIT(E) by observing that the Form 10AB was filed beyond time.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before us. The ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the assessee is a charitable trust engaged in charitable activities and provisional registration in Form 10AC was approved on 19.06.2023 and the Trust had commenced its activity on 30.01.2024. He further submits that the assessee applied for regular registration on 10.08.2024 in Form 10AB under wrong mentioning of proper clause i.e. 80G(5)(ii) instead of 80G(5)(iii) and subsequently, the assessee filed fresh Form 10AB on 27.02.2025 which was rejected by the ld. CIT(E) without considering the fact that the assessee-trust had already made application in form 10AB on 10.8.24 within the six months of commencement of activity on 30.3.24 which was rejected due to inadvertence error of wrong mentioning of proper clause in the application filed in Form 10AB dated 10.8.24.

4.

The ld. DR did not raise any objection to the above submission of the ld. AR of the assessee.

5.

Upon hearing the counsels of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the assessee-trust got provisional registration in Form 10AC on 19.06.2023 and already commenced its activity on 30.01.2024. We further find that the assessee applied for & regular registration on 10.08.2024 in Form 10AB which was rejected by the ld. CIT(E) stating the reason that the assessee-trust filed the said form beyond time limit prescribed. We also find that the assessee had already made application in form 10AB on 10.8.24 within the six months of commencement of activity on 30.3.24 but u/s 80G(5)(ii) and subsequently, an afresh application in Form 10AB u/s 80G(5)(iii) on 27.02.2025 was filed correcting the said inadvertent mistake of wrong mentioning of proper clause in the application filed in Form 10AB. We note that the assessee was done the inadvertent error due to unawareness of the new law applicable in filing Form 10AB for regular registration 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. Keeping in view the above discussion, in the interest of justice, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering the fresh Form 10AB dated 27.02.2025 was filed within the time prescribed and also documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly, is allowed for statistical purposes.

1.

in the instant appeal, the identical facts are involved, therefore, our decision in will mutatis mutandis will apply to the instant appeal also. is also allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 10th February, 2026.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(ii)

All 222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →