Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an existing Trust, applied for renewal of registration under section 80G for AY 2024-25. The CIT(E) rejected the application on the technical ground that the assessee applied under clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. The appeal was filed against this rejection.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the rejection was based on a technical error. For substantial justice, the decision of the CIT(E) needs to be revisited. Therefore, the issue is restored to the file of the CIT(E) to consider the renewal of approval afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for renewal of registration under section 80G on a technical ground, and whether the assessee should be allowed to file a fresh application.
Sections Cited
80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
This appeal is filed against the order of theLd. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai[for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(E)’] passed under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2024-25, date of order 31.08.2024.
Crusade Against Cancer Foundation 2. At the outset, we observe that none was present when the appeal was called for hearing and no adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee. However, we find that the matter could be decided even without the presence from assessee’s side on ex-parte qua. Therefore, we heard the Ld.DR and on the basis of the material available in the record and decided accordingly.
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for renewal of the registration u/s 80G in Form No.10AB dated 239.03.2024 merely on the basis of mentioning of Incorrect clause in the said application disregarding the fact that the Trust is an existing Trust which had been granted registration vide order of registration dated 27-10-2009 w.e.f. 01-04-2009. Accordingly, the Ld.CIT(E) ought to have granted certificate of final registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act registering the Trust for five years i.e. from AY 2024-25 to AY 2028-20.
Without prejudice to the ground no. 1 above and in the alternate
I, In the facts and in the circumstances of tie case and in law, the Ld. CIT(E) be directed to allow the appellant to file fresh application in physical mode for granting final registration from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27 by mentioning clause (i) of first proviso to section 80G(5) being applicable to an existing Trust instead of clause (iv) mentioned in the original application filed on 28-08-2021 being applicable to new Trust by condoning the delay in filing :he fresh application.
3. It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed for hereinabove and/or such other reliefs as may be justified by the facts and circumstances cf the case and as may meet the ends of justice should
The brief facts of the case is that the assessee trust has been granted provisional approval under section as per clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, as below: - Crusade Against Cancer Foundation “(iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier.” The Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application filed in Form 10AB by the assessee trust on the following grounds:- “
3. On perusal of the Form 10AB filed by the assessee it was observed that the assessee has applied under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G i.e. for renewal of approval and not for regularisation of provisional approval. Hence this Application is hereby rejected”.” The aggrieved assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
5. We heard the Ld.DR and perused the materials available on record. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(E). However, we find from the order of the Ld.CIT(E) that he rejected the application filed by the assessee on the technical ground that the assessee has applied under section (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G, i.e. for renewal of approval, in Form 10AB, instead of applying for regularization of provisional approval, under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. This being a technical error and on the ground of substantial justice, in our considered view, the decision of the Ld.CIT(E) needs to be revisited. Therefore, we restore the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the issue of renewal of approval afresh, substantially after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.