SANKALP CHARITABLE SOCIETY,TIRUPATI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned a two-day delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to refile the application for registration under Section 80G. The CIT(E) was directed to afford a hearing before deciding the matter.
What were the facts?
The assessee society applied for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. While 12AB registration was granted, the 80G application was rejected due to an incorrect section code selection. The assessee missed the extended due date for refiling due to time constraints and technical issues.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to apply for Section 80G registration after missing the deadline due to technical glitches and time constraints.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER
O R D E R PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.
This appeal is filed by Sankalp Charitable Society (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, (“Ld. CIT(E)”), dated 24.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2024-25.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of two days in the filing of this appeal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with affidavit. After considering the contents of the condonation petition and hearing the Ld. DR, the delay of two days in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
During the proceedings before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had applied for registration u/s 12AB as well as for approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act”) in Form No.10AB separately. After perusing the application of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) granted the registration u/s 12AB. However, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for registration u/s 80G of the Act contending that the assessee had selected section code 80G(5)(iv)(B) in stead of 80G(5)(ii) and directed the assessee to apply afresh before the extended due date of 30/06/2024 in leu of CBDT Circular No.7/2024 dated 25/04/2024. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee could not apply for registration u/s 80G of the Act before 30/06/2024 by filing a fresh form no. 10AB due to short availability of time and technical glitches. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench for grant of one more opportunity to apply for registration u/s 80G of the Act by filing a fresh form no. 10AB.
Per contra, Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. CIT(E) and pleaded to uphold the order passed by Ld. CIT(E).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. On perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(E), it is clear that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee for registration u/s 80G of the Act contending that the assessee had selected section code 80G(5)(iv)(B) instead of 80G(5)(ii) while filing form no. 10AB and directed the assessee to apply afresh before the extended due date of 30/06/2024 in leu of CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25/04/2024. However, the assessee could not apply for registration u/s 80G of the Act before 30/06/2024 by filing a fresh form no. 10AB due to short availability of time and technical glitches. Considering the fact that the delay caused was not intentional and in view of the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee to file Form 10AB afresh. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Ld. CIT(E) to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to file Form 10AB afresh and decide the issue for grant of registration u/s 80G as per the law. The Ld. CIT(E) shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. Accordingly, grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd September, 2024.
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026