EARTH FOCUS FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 365/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 January 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's authorized representative stated that they did not wish to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this submission.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order rejecting its application for regular approval of registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the application allegedly not being filed within the prescribed time limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the application for registration under section 80G was filed within the time limit and if any delay should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Loya
For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Date of Hearing – 16/12/2024 Date of Order – 08/01/2025

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 21/09/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pune, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2021–22.

2.

In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1 Ground No. 1 That the order in Form 10AD passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Pune rejecting regular approval of registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and wrong on facts. 2. Ground No. 2 That the learned CIT erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for regular approval of registration u/s. 80G, holding that the same is not filed within the time limit allowed under clause (iii) to first proviso of section 80G(5).

2 Earth Focus Foundation On the facts and circumstances of the case-the action of the application is filed within 6 months of commencement of substantial charitable activities. The contention of Id. CIT is improper and unjustified.

3. Ground No. 3 That the application in Form 10AB for regular approval u/s. 80G was made before expiry of provisional approval granted. On the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the learned CIT is improper and unjustified.

4. Ground No. 4 That the learned CIT erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration due to an alleged technical breach without going into the merits of the case. On facts and circumstances, the activities of the company were genuine, charitable and in accordance with the objects of Memorandum of Association. The action of CIT is against the principles of natural justice and uncalled for.

5.

Ground No.5 That the learned CIT, Exemptions erred in law and on facts in holding that CBDT Circular No.6/2023 dated 24-05-2023 extending the due date to 30-9-2023 is not applicable for application made under clause (iii) to first proviso to section 80G(5).

6.

Ground No. 6 Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 raised above, the CIT, Exemptions has erred in not condoning the delay in making application u/s. 80G(5)(iii). On the facts and circumstances of the case, it was a case of genuine hardship and there was a reasonable cause for delay in making application and the CIT was bound to take cognizance of same. The action of the learned CIT is improper and unjustified.”

7.

Ground No. 7 That for any other ground with kind permission of Hon'ble members at the time of hearing of appeal.

3.

During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative, appearing for the assessee submitted that he did not wish to press this appeal, to which, the learned Departmental Representative did not raise any objection. Consequently, we treat this appeal as withdrawn.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/01/2025

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →