ANGEL XPRESS FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 65 days in filing the instant appeal. The Appellant by filing an application has claimed that though the Appellant requested its chartered accountant to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the impugned order, however, due to rush of work related to financial year closing, the appeal could not be filed within the limitation period. The delay occurred in fact was neither deliberate nor malafide but based on the aforesaid reason. Therefore the Hon’ble Tribunal is requested to condone the delay which is otherwise meager. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Appellant qua condonation of delay. We have given thoughtful consideration the rival claims of the parties. We also do not find any material or reason to controvert the claim of the Appellant qua condonation of delay, which is otherwise meager, hence the delay is condoned.

Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Appellant was granted provisional approval under section 80G(5) of the Act and therefore in pursuance of that applied for registration under section 80G(5) of the Act. On perusal of the application filed by the Appellant it was observed by the Ld. Commissioner that the Appellant has applied under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 5 of section 80G(5) of the Act i.e. for renewal of approval and not for regularization of provisional approval and therefore the application is rejected with liberty to the Appellant to re-apply for registration in form No.10AB along with necessary documents as prescribed in Rule 11AA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules).