MADURAI GOVINDAMMAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHEYYUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

and statement of facts contended that the timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act should be treated as directory and not mandatory especially considering the transitional nature of the - 3 - amendment as brought out by the Taxation of other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 and therefore, the CIT(E) should have condoned the delay in filing Form No.10AB for grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act. We find that this issue now stands covered by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Teddy Trust in ITA No.1315/Chny/2023, order dated 10.04.2024, wherein the Tribunal has considered the entire factum and also considered the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sri Nrisimha Priya Charitable Trust in WP Nos.27030 & ors. of 2024, order dated 02.04.2024 and held as under:-

5. It is admitted fact that the assessee is an old trust and it has already commenced its activities on 17.01.1992. It could further be noted that the assessee has already received provisional approval u/s 80G(5)(iv) for a period commencing from 21.10.2022 to AY 2025-26. It sought approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) by filing Form No.10AB on 30.03.2023 which has been rejected by Ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the assessee had violated the mandatory time lines as statutorily provided. However, we find that this issue has been decided by co-ordinate bench in bunch of appeals titled as M/s CIT-1982 Charitable Trust & Ors, ITA No.827/Chny/2023 order dated 08.03.2024 as under: - 7.8 After hearing the arguments of ld. counsel for the assessee and ld. CIT-DR as noted above, we find from the facts that the timeline prescribed for filing Form No.10AB for registration u/s.12A of the Act in the case of assessee trust has been extended up-to 30.09.2023 after considering the genuine hardship faced by charitable institutions vide various CBDT circulars and finally, vide Circular No.6/2023 dated 24.05.2023. Similarly, the timeline prescribed for filing Form No.10A for recognition u/s.80G of the Act was also extended up-to 30.09.2023 by the same circular for trusts filing registration under clause (i) to first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. But the above extension was not extended - 4 - beyond 30.09.2022, unlike other forms which were extended up to 30.09.2023 to the disputed forms namely Form No.10AB for renewal of recognition u/s.80G(5) of the Act under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. Once, the CBDT has extended the timeline for filing Form No.10AB for recognition u/s.12A of the Act and also for filing Form No.10A for recognition u/s.80G of the Act extended up to 30.09.2023 for trusts filing registration under clause (i) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, we find no difference in continuing hardship as recognized by CBDT even in filing Form No.10AB for renewal of recognition u/s.80G of the Act under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. In our view, this being a genuine hardship case, which is recognized by Revenue or CBDT by issuing a general circular, we are of the view that this specific provision of clause (iii) to first proviso to section 80G(5) cannot be excluded and or it has not been the intention of the CBDT while issuing the circular. There cannot be a distinction within the same provision without bringing out any exception and even this provision is for the benefit of the donors who are donating money to the charitable trusts for claiming exemption in their returns of income. In our view, we agree with the argument of ld. counsel for the assessee that the timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act should be treated as directory and not mandatory especially considering the transitional nature of the amendment as brought out by the taxation of other laws (relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) act 2020 for bringing new regime. Hence, in our view, the CIT(Exemptions) should not have rejected the assessee’s application in Form No.10AB only for this technical reason. We are of the view that the intention of CBDT in its circular clearly reflects their mind that once the timeline prescribed for filing Form No.10AB for recognition u/s.12A of the Act has been extended up to 30.09.2023, the same may be treated as extended for forms namely Form No.10AB for renewal of approval/recognition/registration under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G of the Act also. Hence, we accept the plea of assessee and agree with the arguments of ld. counsel for the assessee and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issue on merits. Hence, the order of CIT(Exemption) on this issue is set aside and matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for redeciding the issue on - 5 - ITA No.862/Chny/2024 merits as per law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The bench thus held that the extended time limit of 30.09.2023 as per CBDT Circular would apply to Form No.10AB as well.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 24th June, 2024 at Chennai.