MAKARANTHAM CHARITABLE TRUST,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-2, SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1206/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2024Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection was on a technical ground and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an opportunity to rectify the application and consider it on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust's application for approval under Section 80G was rejected because it was filed under the wrong clause. The trust had obtained provisional approval and sought permanent registration, but inadvertently chose clause (ii) instead of clause (iii).

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of an application for approval under Section 80G on a technical ground, without providing an opportunity to rectify, is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1206/Chny/2023
ITA No.419/Chny/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of application filed in Form No.10AB on 11.10.2022 for seeking approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub- section (5) of Sec.80G vide impugned order dated 21.04.2023, the assessee is in further appeal before us vide ITA No.1206/Chny/2023. The registry has noted a delay of 132 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of Chairman of the assessee trust. It has been stated that the application was rejected on the ground that the assessee ought to have applied under clause (iii) of first proviso to Sec.80G(5) but it wrongly applied under clause (ii). The assessee once again filed Form No.10AB on 06.06.2023 under correct section. However, this form could be filed only for AY 2024-25 and hence, the grievance of the assessee in the present appeal. Considering all these facts, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits.

2.

As is evident, the assessee was been granted provisional approval from 03.08.2022 to AY 2025-26. The Ld. CIT(E) held that application filed under Clause (ii) would not be maintainable since the application was to be filed in Clause (iii) in assessee’ case. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

We find that the application has been rejected merely on technical ground. It is clear that the assessee had obtained provisional approval and it sought permanent registration. By inadvertent mistake, the assessee preferred application under wrong Clause (ii) instead of Clause (iii). The assessee ought to have been granted an opportunity to rectify the same. Nevertheless, we direct Ld. CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the application and consider the same on merits. The assessee is directed to substantiate its application. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. 4 is against rejection of subsequent application filed by the assessee on 06.06.2023. Since we have already allowed relief on original application, this appeal has been rendered infructuous and hence, dismissed.

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →