Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's application for renewal of approval under Section 80G was rejected by the CIT(E) due to a delay of one month in filing the application. The CIT(E) noted that the application was filed on 21.11.2023, while it should have been filed by 30.09.2023 as per the provisions of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB to 30.06.2024. The Tribunal relied on a previous order in a similar case where the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for renewal of approval under Section 80G was justified due to the delayed filing, considering the CBDT circular extending the due date.
Sections Cited
80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDR
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(E)’s order dated 12.04.2024. The solitary issued that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the application made by the assessee Trust for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Assessee’s application in Form 10AB dated 21.11.2023 for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act was rejected by the CIT(E) on account of delay of one month in submission of the said application. The relevant finding of the CIT(E) reads as follows:
“On receipt of application in Form No.10AB dated 21.11.2023 for approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961, assessee was granted opportunity of `being heard vide notices dated 19.02.2024 and 22.03.2024. wherein the assessee was required to appear before CIT (Exemptions), either in person or through an authorized representative alongwith the documents/details. In response to the same, Authorized Representative Sri. Yegneshwaran K G, Administrator appeared on 03.04.2024 and discussed the case.
2. From the submissions, it is seen that assessee has obtained approval u/s.80G in Form 10AC dated on 06.10.2021 (provisional from 06.10.2021 to A Y 2024-2025). For regularization of the provisional approval obtained u/s.80G, assessee filed application in Form No.10AB only on 21.11.2023.
3. As per proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act, the institution/fund shall make an application for grant of approval "(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". According to the Section, assessee should have made the application on or before 30.09.2023. However, in the present case, assessee has made the application in Form No.10AB only on 21.11.2023. Thus the application is made belatedly.
4. In view of the above, the application filed in Form No.10AB dated 21.11.2023 for approval u/s.80G of the Act, is hereby rejected and approval cancelled.”
Aggrieved by the rejection of application dated 21.11.2023, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 had extended the due date for filing Form 10A/10AB till 30.06.2024. In this context, the learned AR relied on the Order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Samyata Foundation Vs. DCIT in (order dated 16.05.2024).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee’s application for approval under section 80G of the Act was rejected by the CIT(E) since Form 10AB was filed belatedly. We notice that CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 had extended the due date for filing Form 10AB till 30.06.2024. The relevant portion of the said Circular at para 4.1 reads as follows:
“4.1 Further, in cases where any trust, institution or fund has already made an application in Form No.10AB, and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has passed an order rejecting such application, on or before the issuance of this Circular, solely on account of the fact that the application was furnished after the due date or that the application has been furnished under the wrong section code, it may furnish a fresh application in Form No.10AB within the extended time provided in paragraph 3(ii) i.e. 30.06.2024.”
On identical facts, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal had restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The relevant finding of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Samyata Foundation Vs. DCIT (supra) reads as follows:
“3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The ld. A.R. submitted that there was a delay in filing the application for approval u/s 12AB of the Act. However, that delay was condoned by CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.4.2024, wherein specifically observed as follows:
“4.1 Further, in cases where any trust, institution or fund has already made an application in Form No.10AB, and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has passed an order rejecting such application, on or before the issuance of this Circular, solely on account of the fact that the application was furnished after the due date or that the application has been furnished under the wrong section code, it may furnish a fresh application in Form No.10AB within the extended time provided in paragraph 3(ii) i.e. 30.06.2024.”
3.1 In view of this, we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration to decide the same in accordance with law.”
In light of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and the Board’s Circular, we restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the issue.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.