BOSCO GRAMIN VIKAS KENDRA,AHILYANAGAR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

There is a delay of 32 days in filing of both the appeals before the Tribunal for which the respective assessees have filed separate condonation applications along with affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with the affidavits and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.

First we take up ITA No.1848/PUN/2025. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB on 29.10.2024 for approval of the trust under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub section (5) of section 80G of the Act. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 23.11.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information / clarification. In response to the same, the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. However, the Ld. CIT(E) was not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee and rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G by observing as under:

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(E) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law the learned CIT (Exemption) Pune erred rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB under Clause (iii) of first proviso to Section 80G(5) without considering the fact that he ought to have granted the regular approval under section 80G instead of provisional approval on filing the first application by the assessee trust. Hence, it is prayed before the Hon'ble bench that impugned order may please be set aside and regular registration may please be granted. 2. Without prejudice to the other grounds and on the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law the learned CIT (Exemption) - Pune erred rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB under Clause (iii) of first proviso to Section 80G(5) without considering the fact that the assessee trust has already filed an application on 12.01.2024 for regular registration i.e. within the statutory time limit specified in CBDT Circular No.7/2024. Hence, it is prayed before the Hon'ble bench that impugned order may please be set aside and regular registration may please be granted. 3. Without prejudice to the other grounds and on the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law the learned CIT (Exemption) - Pune erred rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB under Clause (iii) of first proviso to Section 80G(5) as non-maintainable on the ground of being flied beyond the statutory period without going into merit. Hence, it is prayed before the Hon'ble bench that a fresh opportunity may please be granted before Ld. CIT(E) treating the application so filed within the statutory time limit. 4. Without prejudice to the other grounds and on the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned CIT (Exemption) - Pune erred in rejecting the application of the assessee for seeking approval under section 80G without appreciating the submission made by the assessee trust. Hence, the approval under section 80G may please be granted. 5. The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee trust had made the original application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act on 20.01.2024 which is well within the time limit as per CBDT Circular No.7/2024, according to which the due date was 30.06.2024. However, the same was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E), Pune on account of selection of wrong clause. He submitted that after this rejection order the assessee trust filed the application under consideration on 29.10.2024. He submitted that since the assessee trust filed the original application on 20.01.2024 i.e. well within the time limit specified in CBDT Circular No.7/2024 i.e. 30.06.2024, there is no violation in respect of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that since there is no violation in respect of clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, therefore, the assessee should be granted approval u/s 80G of the Act.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E) refusing to grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act on the ground that since the provisional approval order u/s 80G(5)(iv) of the Act was passed on 31.05.2021 which was due to expire on 31.03.2024, therefore, the assessee should have filed the application for regular approval atleast six months prior to the expiry of period

We find some force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In our opinion technicalities should not come in the way of genuine and deserving cases for approval u/s 80G of the Act. Since in the instant case the only reason for rejection of grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act by the Ld. CIT(E) is filing of the

After hearing both sides we find the grounds raised by the assessee are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.1849/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration afresh. Following similar reasonings, we restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

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