PARDHAN ACHARYA PUJYA SHRI SOHAN LAL JAIN SAMARAK SAMITI,AMRITSAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

PDF
ITA 603/ASR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 September 2025AY 2024-2025Bench: DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

Two assessee trusts filed applications in Form 10AB seeking approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected these applications summarily, stating they were filed under the wrong clause, deeming them not maintainable due to a technical deficiency related to the type of 80G approval sought (renewal vs. initial).

Held

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection of the applications, finding no infirmity in the decision based on the technical defect. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to both assessee trusts to file fresh applications in the correct clause before the CIT(E), who shall condone any delay in such filings and examine the applications de novo without being influenced by the present order's observations on the merits.

Key Issues

Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was correct in rejecting applications for approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) due to a technical defect in filing under an incorrect clause in Form 10AB, and if so, what relief should be granted to the assessee trusts.

Sections Cited

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Hearing: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 26.09.2025

Per: DR. M.L. Meena, AM.:

Both the appeals have been preferred by the assessee feeling aggrieved by two

separate orders passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),

Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to “the CIT(E)”] even dated 05.08.2024

challenging therein rejection of their application for registration under section 80G

(5) (ii) of the Income Tax Act (In short ‘the Act’).

2.

None attended for the assessee. However, after hearing the Ld. CIT (DR) and

going through the written submission dated 05.08.2025 filed by the assessee, we find

that there was short delay of 35 days and 38 days in the ITA Nos. 603/Asr/2024 and

604/Asr/2024 respectively. The short delay in filing these appeals have been

condoned as the Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, these appeals were admitted

on merits.

3.

From the perusal of record, we find that the Ld. CIT exemption has rejected

both the applications filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB seeking approval u/s

80G (5) (ii) of the Income Tax Act summarily with similar observation as under:

“The application filed by the applicant is under wrong clause as

the same is not applicable in the case. Hence, the application is

cancelled being not maintainable.

ITA No. 603/Asr/2024 and 604/Asr/2024 3

It is observed that application filed by the applicant is applicable

in the cases where the institution or fund is approved under section

80G(5) for 5 years and the aforementioned application is required

to be filed when the period of such approval is due to expire, at

least 6 months prior to expiry of the said period as per the

provisions of Section 80G(5)(ii) of the act.”

4.

From the record it is evident that the Ld. CIT (E) has categorically observed

that the application was filed by the applicant under wrong clause as the same is not

applicable in the case. Hence, the application is cancelled, not being maintainable.

Meaning thereby that the failure on the part of the appellant was technical deficiency

in filling Form 10 AB in wrong clause. The aforesaid deficiency pointed out by the

Ld. CIT (E) could be removed on filing Fresh application by the appellant in Form

10 AB in the correct clause applicable for the approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act.

5.

Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT Exemption in

rejecting the approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act. Thus, the instant appeals of the

assessee trusts in ITA Nos. 603/Asr/2024 and 604/Asr/2024 are liable to be rejected.

6.

Without prejudice to the above, we allow liberty to both the assessee Trusts

to file afresh application in correct clause in the prescribed Form for the approval

u/s 80G(5)(ii) of the Act, before the CIT (E) who shall condone the delay and

examine the application of the assessee Trust de novo as per the mandate. Thus, the

ITA No. 603/Asr/2024 and 604/Asr/2024 4

assessee Trusts are granted liberty that delay in filing the applications for approval

before the Ld. CIT (E) would be condoned in view of the technical deficiency in

their previous applications.

7.

Without prejudice to the above, we make it clear that we have expressed no

opinion on the merits of the case and therefore, the Ld. CIT (E) shall be at liberty to

take a view without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove.

8.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, both the instant appeals are

dismissed.

Order pronounced on 26.09.2025 in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) (DR. M. L. MEENA) Judicial Member Accountant Member

AKV

Copy of the order forwarded to:

(1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order

PARDHAN ACHARYA PUJYA SHRI SOHAN LAL JAIN SAMARAK SAMITI,AMRITSAR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH | BharatTax