PARUL GAUSEVA JIVDAYA TRUST,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 903/SRT/2025Status: HeardITAT Surat23 January 2026AY 2025-26Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to consider the application afresh, taking into account any submissions and explanations provided by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Trust, filed Form No. 10AB seeking approval under section 80G(5)(iii). The CIT(E) rejected the application as it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit and considered it non-maintainable.

What were the issues?

Whether the application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) is maintainable if filed beyond the prescribed time limit and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish further details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. DR
Hearing: 23.01.2026Pronounced: 23.01.2026

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, relating to the Assessment Year 2025-26.

3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust which filed Form No. 10AB seeking approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(E) rejected the application for approval on the ground that the assessee Trust failed to file the application within the prescribed time limit. Accordingly, the learned CIT(E) treated the application as non- maintainable and rejected the same. Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee on the ground that the assessee-trust failed to produce substantial documents before the Ld.CIT(E) within the prescribed time. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed that given an opportunity, the same would be apprised to the Ld.CIT(E). Ld. CIT(DR) argued that the assessee-trust needs to furnish requisite details/explanations and submissions before the Ld. CIT(E). Having considered the facts on record, we hold that interests of justice would be well served by remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration of the application afresh and to pass an order by taking into consideration the submissions /explanations submitted by the assessee.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23.01.2026. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE-PRESIDENT () () Ahmedabad; Dated 23.01.2026 MV Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 3–

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(iii)

All 687 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →