Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessees, two trusts, applied for regular approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after holding provisional approvals. The CIT(Exemption) rejected their applications, arguing they were filed beyond the prescribed time limit as per CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024, despite the assessees claiming an earlier application was rejected due to a wrong clause selection.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessees had filed an earlier application within the due date which was technically rejected. As the CIT(Exemption) had not reviewed the genuineness of the trusts' activities, the Tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration, directing them to review the original application and the trusts' activities, and provide a fair hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Exemption) was justified in rejecting the applications for regular 80G approval as time-barred, considering an earlier timely application was rejected due to a technical error in clause selection.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80G, Section 80G(5), Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G, Clause (iv) of first proviso to Section 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
The above two appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 08.04.2025 and 09.04.2025 respectively of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), Pune rejecting the application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since identical grounds have been raised in both the appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
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 of provisional approval i.e. on or before 30.09.2023 or within six months from the date of commencement of the activities. Since the activities of the assessee trust has already commenced during financial year 1994-95 i.e. on the date of provisional approval on 31.05.2021, therefore, the assessee was required to file the application for regular approval within 6 months from the date of provisional approval which is 30.11.2021. However, the assessee in the instant case has filed the present application on 29.10.2024 which is beyond the due date of 30.09.2023 or the extended time limit as per the CBDT Circular No.7/2024 of 30.06.2024, therefore, he rejected the application being filed after the expiry of the period under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee 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 specified in CBDT Circular No.7/2024 i.e. 30.06.2024. Since the same was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on account of selection of wrong clause, the assessee filed another application on 29.10.2024 for approval u/s 80G of the Act. It is also his submission that the assessee has filed the requisite details substantiating its activities and Ld. CIT(E) has not passed any comments on the same.
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 application on 29.10.2024 which is beyond the prescribed due date and since the assessee in the instant case has in fact, filed the original application on 30.01.2024 which is well before the due date as per CBDT circular No.7/2024 but rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on account of selection of wrong clause and since the Ld. CIT(E) has not passed any comments about the activities of assessee trust, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the application keeping in mind the original application which was filed well before the prescribed due date and the activties of the assessee trust. Needless to say the Ld. CIT(E) shall decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by asse are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
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.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th January, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 29th January, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 28.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 28.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Office 9 Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order