Loading judgment…
Facts
Two assessee trusts filed applications for registration under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, which were rejected by the CIT(E) on 05.08.2024. The rejection was primarily because the applications were filed under the wrong clause, rendering them not maintainable.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection of the current applications due to the technical deficiency of filing under the wrong clause. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to file fresh applications under the correct clause, directing the CIT(E) to condone the delay and consider them de novo without prejudice to the merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting applications for 80G registration due to filing under an incorrect clause and the process for rectifying such technical deficiencies.
Sections Cited
Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
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’).
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 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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 and 604/Asr/2024 are liable to be rejected.
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 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.
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.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, both the instant appeals are dismissed.
Order pronounced on 26.09.2025 in the open Court.