Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against orders by CIT Exemptions/PCIT rejecting applications for registration under sections 12AA and 80G. A significant delay in one appeal was due to an inadvertent error during online renewal for 80G registration, where clause (iv) (provisional) was selected instead of clause (i) (permanent) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), despite the assessee being an existing approved entity. The lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without full compliance from the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal on the assessee for non-compliance with lower authorities. It found that the assessee was entitled to permanent 5-year registration under section 80G and the error was inadvertent. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E)/CPC to treat the application under the correct clause (i) and grant permanent 80G recognition for 5 years. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision with directions to provide due opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal. 2. Validity of ex-parte rejection of 12AA/80G registration applications by lower authorities. 3. Whether an inadvertent online selection of provisional registration instead of permanent registration under section 80G by an existing approved entity should be rectified.
Sections Cited
12AA, 80G, 253(5), 80G(5) first proviso clause (i), 80G(5) first proviso clause (iv), 12A(1)(ac)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आदेश/Order Per Bench :
Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 30.12.2025 (AYs 2025- 26) passed by the Ld. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh and dt. 6.4.2022 (AY 2024-25) by Ld. PCIT.
The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1255 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal in for A.Y. 2024-24 (u/s 80G).. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is reproduced as under: - ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 3 ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 4 ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 5 ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 6 ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 7 ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 8
We have considered the detailed reasons given in the Application / Affidavit and keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned therein, we are inclined to condone the delay.
The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal in is hereby condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that though the identical grounds raised
in the captioned appeals, the foremost grievance of the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh erred in violating the principal of natural justice by not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the applicant and passed the orders by rejecting the applications of the Assessee for Registration u/s 12AA /
80. G of the Act and as such the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) / PCIT in all the appeals deserve to be quashed.
ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 9
Per contra, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and pointed out that the Ld. CIT(E) / PCIT has although passed ex-parte orders but at the same time from the order of the Ld. CIT(E) in it is clear that six opportuneness were given to the Assessee but the Assessee did not comply with. It neither filed any details nor documents or sought any adjournment.
We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(E) in the orders wherein, the Ld. CIT(E) / PCIT had directed the Assessee to furnish the necessary details but no details or other verifiable records were furnished by the Assessee and in the absence of any documentary evidences / details, the Ld. CIT(E) / PCIT rejected the applications of the Assessee for grant of registration in these cases. From the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) / PCIT, it is evident that opportunities were given to be Assessee but the Assessee did not comply with. It neither filed the required details nor documents as sought by the Department. It is very serious thing where Assessee’s /
ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 10 applicants are not appearing or not filing the requisite information before the lower authorities and directly coming to the Tribunal. Therefore, as discussed with ld. AR during the proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only), in each case, is imposed upon the Assessee which is required to be deposited by the Assessee in the ‘Poor Patient Welfare Fund’ maintained by PGIMER, Chandigarh within 15 days of receipt of this order.
However, ongoing through the material available on record and keeping in view the element of natural justice, we feel one more opportunity needs to be provided to the Assessee to produce and furnish necessary documents / information before the Ld. CIT(E).
Further, as we have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities, we find firstly, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee possessed registration u/s.80G in the old regime vide orders dated 29.5.2020 ( and order dt. 6.4.2022 ( ITA No. 1670/Chd/2025). As per the new procedure for ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 11 registration under the 1st proviso to section 80G(5), it should have filed an application under clause (i), which would have provided it registration for 5 years. However, as submitted by the Ld.AR, the application was by inadvertence filed under clause (iv), accordingly the registration was given only from 29.5.2020 for AY 2025- 25 and from 06.04.2022 to Α.Υ.2024-25. The appellant trust had time until 30.06.2024 to file an application under clause (i) and it would have obtained registration for 5 years. We agree with the arguments of the Ld. AR that the appellant was entitled to be registered for 5 years and merely for the reason that it had filed the application under incorrect clause by selecting the wrong drop-down, the same cannot be taken away. The same ratio has been held by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal bunal in Kaakkum Karangal vs. The ITO in ITA No. 1561/Chny/2023.
Also, as per the provisions of section 80G, the assessee being an old trust, it should have filed an application under clause (i) only. Since clause (i) applies
ITAs 1471-1489-1670-Chd-2025 12 to the assessee, it could not have filed an application under clause (iv). Hence, we direct the CIT(E)/CPC to grant recognition u/s.80G of the Act for 5 years by treating the application as an application filed under clause (i) of the 1st proviso for which the assessee is otherwise entitled to. Hence, the appeals in ITAs Nos. 1489/Chd/2025 and 1670/Chd/2025 are allowed for Statistical purposes. In view of this, the matter in the captioned appeals is restored to the file of the CIT(E) for decision afresh. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(E) will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present its case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The Assessee is also directed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(E) as and when called for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay in the hearing of the appeals.
In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.