SMT. MANGLA RAMNIWAS MANDHANI ABMM AWAS YOJNA FOUNDATION,JALNA vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION ), EXEMPTION

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order

passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune [‘the

CIT, Exemption’] dated 16.12.2023 denying the grant of approval

u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Trust formed with the object of providing relief to poor and deserving

persons by way of giving reliefs for setting up homes and hostels for

women, orphans old age homes, day care centres and such other

ITA No.236/PUN/2024

facilities for senior citizens and measures etc. The appellant was granted

provisional approval u/s.80G(5)(vi) read with clause (iv) of first proviso

to section 80G(5) of the Act on 24.09.2022. Thereafter, the appellant

trust had filed application in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of first

proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G on 29.08.2023. The said

application came to be rejected by the ld. CIT, Exemption vide order

dated 16.12.2023 on the ground that the application was not filed within

six months from the date of grant of provisional approval, i.e., on or

before 28.06.2023. Since the application was filed by the appellant on

29.08.2023, the ld. CIT, Exemption placing reliance on the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Harish Chandra

AIR 1996 SC 2173 as well as Union of India Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic

Co. Ltd. 1996 taxmann.com 575 (SC) held that in the absence of power

to condone the delay the statutory authority cannot condone the delay.

Thus, the ld. CIT, Exemption denied the approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act.

the present appeal.

dt.25.04.2024 the benefit of extended time for filing application Form

10AB may be granted to the appellant trust.

contending that in view of contents of para 4.1 of the said CBDT

ITA No.236/PUN/2024

circular, benefit of circular cannot be extended to the appellant trust as

the application made by the appellant trust was disposed of before the

issue of said circular.

record. The provisional approval was granted to the appellant trust

u/s.80G(5) on 24.09.2022. Then, the appellant had made application in

Form 10AB on 28.08.2023. The appellant trust was required to file

application in Form 10AB on or before 28.06.2023 but the same came to

be filed on 29.08.2023. It is an admitted fact that the ld. CIT, Exemption

had already disposed the application before the issue of CBDT Circular

No.07/2024, dt. 25.04.2024, therefore, we concur with the submission of

ld. CIR-DR that benefit of said circular cannot be extended to the

appellant trust. The relevant provisions of section 80G(5) read as under :

“(5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub- clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), only if it is established in India for a charitable purpose and if it fulfils the following conditions, namely :— (i) where the institution or fund derives any income, such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of sections 11 and 12 or clause (23AA) or clause (23C) of section 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided that the institution or fund referred to in clause (vi) shall make an application in the prescribed form and manner to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, for grant of approval,— (i) where the institution or fund is approved under clause (vi) [as it stood immediately before its amendment by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020], within three months from the 1st day of April, 2021; (ii) where the institution or fund is approved and the period of such approval is due to expire, at least six months prior to expiry of the said period; (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;

ITA No.236/PUN/2024

[(iv) in any other case, where activities of the institution or fund have–– (A) not commenced, at least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year from which the said approval is sought; (B) commenced and where no income or part thereof of the said institution or fund has been excluded from the total income on account of applicability of sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 or section 11 or section 12 for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any time after the commencement of such activities:]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided also that the order under clause (i), sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) and clause (iii) of the [second] proviso shall be passed in such form and manner as may be prescribed, before expiry of the period of three months, six months and one month, respectively, calculated from the end of the month in which the application was received: Provided also that the approval granted under the second proviso shall apply to an institution or fund, where the application is made under— (a) clause (i) of the first proviso, from the assessment year from which approval was earlier granted to such institution or fund; (b) clause (iii) of the first proviso, from the first of the assessment years for which such institution or fund was provisionally approved; (c) in any other case, from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made.

From the above provisions, it is very clear that no power is conferred

upon neither on the CIT to condone the delay in filing Form 10AB, nor

on Appellate Authority.

granted to the appellant trust on 24.09.2022. The appellant trust was

required to file application in Form 10AB on or before 28.06.2023 but

the same came to be filed on 29.08.2023. Thus, there is a delay of more

than six months. Therefore, the question to be answered is that whether

the Tribunal, while exercising the power vested under the provisions of

ITA No.236/PUN/2024

section 80G(5) can condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal. A

mere perusal of provisions of section 80G(5), it would reveal that the

Legislature has not vested the Tribunal with the power to condone the

delay in filing the appeal. The scheme of the Act would disclose that the

Legislature had deliberately excluded the application of the principles

underlying section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act in relation to the

provisions of section 80G of the Income Tax Act. However, the

Legislature had vested the power to condonation of delay in relation to

the provisions of section 249 and section 254 of the Act. Thus, the very

fact that the Legislature had provided for a power to condonation of

delay in relation to the provisions of section 249 and section 254 of the

Act shows that the Legislature had consciously excluded the power of

Tribunal to condone the delay in relation to the provisions of section

80G(5)of the Act. In this connection, we would like reference to the

order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nityananda M. Joshi

vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1970 SC 209 held that in

view of section 4 & 5 of the Limitation Act, it would be clear that the

scheme of the Act is that it only deals with applications to courts and the

Labour Court is not a court within the meaning of the Limitation Act,

and, therefore, an application u/s 33C(2) cannot be held to be barred

under Article 137, insofar as the claim was for a period beyond three

years.

ITA No.236/PUN/2024

provisions, no power exists in the authority to condone the delay. It is

also equally settled position of law that the provisions of section 5 of the

Limitation Act have no application to the proceedings before the

Tribunal. In the case of CIT vs. Western India Engineering Co. Ltd., 77

ITR 165, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held

that the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 is not a court but is merely a tribunal exercising the judicial power

of the State. As the provisions of the Limitation Act are not intended to

be made applicable to proceedings before authorities other than courts

governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal

Procedure, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, will not apply to applications

made to the Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal has no

power to condone delay in filing reference applications under Section

66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

162 a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that Section

69 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, indicates that

provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are not attracted to

proceedings under the Act and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

condone delay in filing an application for reference under Section 60(1)

of the said Act.

ITA No.236/PUN/2024

In Insp. Asst CIT vs. Kedar Nath Jhunjhunwalla, 133 ITR 746 a 10.

Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court has held that Section

29(2) of the Limitation Act will apply to appeals and applications filed

under a special law only where the scheme of the special law does not

exclude its application. Neither the provision of Section 5 nor that of

Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act will apply to appeals filed under

Section 269H of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ratios, it would be clear that the Tribunal constituted under the

provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a Court but a Tribunal unless

there is express power conferred by the said Act to condone the delay or

exclude any period of limitation, the Tribunal would not be clothed with

the power to condone the delay. It is trite law that in the absence of any

conferment of power by the statute, the Tribunal cannot condone the

delay in filing the application in Form 10AB. Thus, the ld. CIT,

Exemption had rightly denied the grant of approval u/s.80G(5) by

placing reliance on the judgment in the case of State of UP Vs. Harish

Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173 as well as Union of India Vs. Kirloskar

Pneumatic Co. Ltd. 1996 taxmann.com 575 (SC)

is justified in denying grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act.

ITA No.236/PUN/2024

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 16th May, 2024 Satish

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune