AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, dated 23.09.2025. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1)That the learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law and on facts by rejecting the appellant s application for final approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), solely on the technical ground of delay in filing Form 10AB, thereby failing to appreciate that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate.
2)That the learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the rejection was purely on technical grounds and not on the basis of objects, genuineness of activities, OR compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 80G(5) of the Act.
3)That the learned CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the principle of substantive justice over technicalities, which is paramount in the case of charitable organizations. The Tribunal is requested to adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach and condone the technical delay, thereby allowing the application to be decided on its merits and not on a procedural lapse.
4)In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, CIT(EXEMPTION) has erred in rejecting the application for final registration on the ground that the said application is belatedly filled without considering genuine hardship faced in filling Form 10AB which is also an admitted position in the CBDT Circular No 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024.
5)Without prejudice to the above, the appellant requests that the application originally filed under clause (iii), be considered as an application filed under clause (iv)(B) of Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6)That the delay was Bonafide and unintentional, arising from an inadvertent technical lapse on the part of the accountant, who filed both applications together under the bona fide belief that the timelines under Sections 12A and 80G were identical.
7)That in view of above, the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable, and deserves to be quashed with directions for fresh adjudication.
We have noted that the only issue emanating from the contest of the assessee is regarding denial of registration u/s 80G of the Act. As per brief factual matrix of the case, the appellant had applied for registration u/s 80G vide its application dated 05.03.2025. The ld. CIT(E) vide her order dated 23.09.2025 concluded that as the application has not been filed within the time limit prescribed under clause-iii of sub-section 5 of section 80G, the same deserves to be rejected. Consequently, the application was rejected.
We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on records. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that grave injustice has been caused to the appellant assessee pursuing charitable activities by denial of registration u/s 80G of the Act. The Trust was reportedly working for the cause of destitute and abandoned animals. The ld. Counsel has argued that there was no intention behind the delay and that the accountant assigned the job had filed separate applications for registration u/s 12A and 80G. It was submitted that by inadvertent mistake, the application for 80G got delayed. The ld. Counsel further submitted that whereas it application for grant of registration u/s 12A was approved on 22.09.2025, its application for grant of registration u/s 80G was rejected vide order dated 23.09.2025. The ld. Counsel argued that 80G cannot be denied to it in the event of valid 12A registration. The ld. Counsel submitted that the rejection is purely on technical and procedural grounds and that the same cannot come in way of a beneficial provisions available to a tax payer. The ld. Counsel further submitted that alternatively its application could have been considered for consideration by ld. CIT(E) as having filed in clause-iv(B) of sub-section 5 of section 80G. In support of its contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance upon a catena of judgments including of this Tribunal in the case of Prachin Shri Agarwal Digambar Jain Panchayat Delhi ITA No.1673/Del/2025, dated 20.08.2024.
The ld. DR vehemently argued against registration placing reliance upon the order of the lower authorities.
We have noted that on identical facts this Tribunal in the case of Prachin Shri Agarwal Digambar Jain Panchayat (supra) has held as under:-
“..9. The Ld. AR further argued that the solitary dispute involved in this appeal to be decided that whether the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB on 30.09.2023 under rule 17A/11AA12e, had been filed within the prescribed time under clause (iii) of the first provision to section 80(G) of the Act or not ? In this regards he submitted that the said application had been filed within prescribed time limit and the second limb of clause could not been acted which was an impossibility and since the provisional approval had been granted till 31.03.2025. The application filed on Form 10AB on 30.09.2023 could not been treated as time barred.
10.In support of argument advanced on behalf of the assessee, following orders relied upon:
•CIT-1982 charitable Trust u/s ITO (2024) 160 taxmann.com 475 (Chennai)
•(2024) 160 taxman.com 174 (Kolkata) Tomorrow’s Foundation v/s Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
•(2024) 160 taxman.com 624 (Kolkata) Anudip Foundation for social welfare v/s CIT (Exemption)
•(2024) 160 taxman.com 154 (Pune) Birmani Charitable Foundation v/s CIT (Exemption)
11.It is submitted by the Ld. AR that previously vide clarification circular no. 06/2023 dated 24.05.2023 CBDT had in exercise of its power u/s 119 of the Act, extended the period of limitation till 30.09.2023 by which limit had been since extended till 30.09.2023 for grant of approval. In this context, he also relied upon order of the ITAT Chennai Bench, dated 08.03.2024, CIT-1982 Charitable Trust v/s ITO (supra) in which held that since time limit had been extended till 30.09.2023, rejection for grant of approval termed an improper and unsustainable in law. The relevant para no. 7.8 is being reproduced as below:
“7.8After hearing the arguments of ld. counsel for the assessee and Id. 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 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 is for the benefit of provision 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 Id. counsel for the assessee that the timeline prescribed under clause (ii) 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 Id. 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 re-deciding the issue on merits as per law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. “
12.In abovecited order of the Co-ordinate Bench, clearly held that the timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act should be treated as directory 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 and application for above purpose in Form 10AB should not reject on merely technical reasons.
13.In the course of hearing it was brought into our notice that further CBDT issued Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 by which above time limit extended till 30.06.2024. The relevant portion of the aforementioned circular is reproduced as under:
“ On consideration of difficulties reported by the taxpayers and other stakeholders in the electronic filing of Form No. 10A/10AB, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board) in exercise of its powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) extended the due date for filing Form No. 10A to 31.08.2021 by Circular No. 12/2021 dated 25.06.2021, to 31.03.2022 by Circular No. 16/2021 dated 29.08.2021, to 25.11.2022 by Circular No. 22/2022 dated 01.11.2022 and further to 30.09.2023 by Circular No. 6/2023 dated 24.05.2023, and extended the due date for filing Form No. 10AB to 30.09.2022 by Circular No. 8/2022 dated 31.03.2022 and further to 30.09.2023 by Circular No. 6/2023 dated 24.05.2023.
2.Representations have been received in the Board with a request to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e. 30.09.2023.
3.On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends the due date of making an application/intimation electronically in –
i)Form No. 10A, in case of an application under clause (1) of the first proviso to clause (230) of section 10 or under sub-clause (1) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A or under clause (1) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G or in case of an intimation under fifth proviso of sub- section (1) of section 35 of the Act, till 30.06.2024;
ii) Form No. 10AB, in case of an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A or under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, till 30.06.2024.
4.It may also be noted that extension of due date as mentioned in paragraph 3(ii) shall also apply in case of all pending application under clause (iii) for the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A or under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act, as the case may be. Hence, in cases where any trust, institution or fund has already made an application in Form No.10AB under the said provisions on or before the issuance of this Circular, and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has not passed an order before the issuance of this Circular, the pending application in Form No. 10AB may be treated as a valid application.
4.1Further, in cases where any trust, institution or fund has already made an application in Form No. 10AB, and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has passed an order rejecting such application, on or before the issuance of this Circular, solely on account of the fact that the application was furnished after the due date or that the application has been furnished under the wrong section code, it may furnish a fresh application in Form No. 10AB within the extended time provided in paragraph 3(ii) i.e. 30.06.2024.
5.It is also clarified that if any existing trust, institution or fund who had failed to file Form No. 10A for AY 2022-23 within the due date as extended by the CBDT circular no. 6/2023 dated 24.05.2023 and subsequently, applied for provisional registration as a new trust, institution or fund and has received Form No. 10AC, it can avail the option to surrender the said Form No. 10AC and apply for registration for AY 2022-23 as an existing trust, institution or fund in Form No. 10A within the extended time provided in paragraph 3(1) i.e. 30.06.2024.”
14.Upon hearing arguments by both sides at length, there is substance in the submission of the Ld. AR that in the instant case provisional approval u/s 80G of the Act had been granted to the appellant from 25.10.2022 to AY 2025-26, so period for which provisional approval had been granted was to expire only on 31.03.2025 and not before and further that the second limb of the aforesaid clause was inapplicable in appellant case.
15.We are of the considered opinion that rule of procedure are just to handmaid to administration of justice and not to penalise anybody and object of procedure only for interest of justice and the time limit prescribed in aforementioned provisions and clauses in question is quite directory in nature, not mandatory and such a provision / clause should be dealt which in above manner in order to fulfil the End’s of justice. So looking into abovecited circulars, judicial precedents cited as above, we are inclined to accept the plea of assessee / appellant and remitting the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh on merit, in accordance with law.
16.Consequently, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) is hereby set aside and quashed on this point and matter be remitted back to file of the Ld. CIT(E) with the direction to decide expeditiously afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from receiving this order as far as possible. The present appeal is allowed as indicated above for statistical purpose.
We have further noted that on identical facts, Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Rotary Magnum Trust in ITA No.2109/Chny/2025, vide order dated 06.11.2025 has held as under:-
“…6.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the principal issue is as to whether the delay caused by the assessee in filing of its application u/s 80G for grant of registration can be condoned and registration be granted or not. We have also noted that CBDT through its instructions has accorded powers to the CIT(E) for condoning the delay in matters concerning 12A registrations. We have noted that while doing so, CBDT had primarily examined the issue of “continuing hardship” to the taxpayers in filing timely applications and thus being deprived of registration on such technical deficiencies. Registrations under section 12A and 80G are closely inter-linked and or rather supplementing their independent objectives. The present issue is also one of genuine hardships and therefore there cannot be a distinction within the same provision without bringing any exception. The provisions of 80G are for the benefit of donors who are donating amounts of money to Charitable Trusts, engaged in selfless public service, for claiming exemption in the Returns of Income. We have noted that this issue has been extensively dealt by a Hon’ble Coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of CIT-1982 Charitable Trust as at 160 taxmann.com 475. Further, in the case of Society for Community Organization and Peoples Education(SCOPE) in ITA No.1127/Chny/2025 dated 03.10.2025 it was observed that :-
“……7.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the principal issue is as to whether the delay caused by the assessee in filing of its application u/s 80G for grant of registration can be condoned and registration be granted ???. We have also noted that CBDT through its instructions has accorded powers to the CIT(E) for condoning the delay in matters concerning 12A registrations. We have noted that while doing so, CBDT had primarily examined the issue of “continuing hardship” to the taxpayers in filing timely applications and thus being deprived of registration on such technical deficiencies. Registrations under section 12A and 80G are closely inter-linked and or rather supplementing their independent objectives. The present issue is also one of genuine hardships and therefore there cannot be a distinction within the same provision without bringing any exception. The provisions of 80G are for the benefit of donors who are donating amounts of money to Charitable Trusts, engaged in selfless public service, for claiming exemption in the Returns of Income. We have noted that this issue has been extensively dealt by a Hon’ble Coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of CIT-1982 Charitable Trust as at 160 taxmann.com 475. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.8After 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 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 re-deciding the issue on merits as per law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes……”
7.0We have further noted that another Coordinate Bench of this tribunal in ITA No.1012/Chny/2025 dated 25.07.2025 in the case of Aalayam held as under:-
“….6. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee made application under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G of the Act seeking approval u/s. 80G of the Act on 30.09.2024. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application as not maintainable on the ground that the assessee has not filed the application before 30.06.2024 as provided in CBDT Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024. However, it is noted that clause (iv) has now been inserted into the first proviso to Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, wef 01.10.2024 to enable assessee trust to apply for approval u/s 80G(5) at any time after commencement of its activities. This provision is disjoint from clause (iii), which governed the earlier timeline. The Ld CIT(E) has passed the order rejecting application on 12.02.2025 after the amendment had come into force, as non maintainable . We, therefore direct the Ld. CIT(E) to treat the application filed on 22.08.2024 as having been filed under clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5), and decide in accordance with the law. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only….”
8.0Thus, the uniform view taken by this tribunal on the issue is that, considering the amendment by the Finance Bill 2024, the applications u/s 80G(5) after the due date can be considered within the meanings of the section 80G(5)(iv). We have also noted that the decision of the Coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of CIT-1982 Charitable Trust supra which has gone to conclude that the timelines u/s 80G(5) are directory in nature and that therefore any rejection of delayed applications by CIT(E) would be merely a case of reliance on pure technicalities.
9.0We have noted that the facts of the present case are identical to those as in ITA No.1127/Chny/2025 dated 03.10.2025 and in ITA No.1012/Chny/2025 dated 25.07.2025 supra and no distinguishment was pointed out by the Revenue. Accordingly, in respectful compliance to the aforesaid orders of this tribunal and for the purposes of consistencies, we direct the Ld.CIT(E) to treat the delayed application filed by the assessee as having been filed under clause-(iv) of the first proviso to section 80G and decide in accordance with law. The assessee shall be entitled to be granted due opportunities of being heard and shall be bounden to comply with all the statutory notices issued by the Revenue.
In view of the above, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes…”
We have noted that the facts of present case are identical to those deliberated in judicial precedents discussed hereinabove. Grant of Registration u/s 80G should have been considered favorably considering the fact that the registration u/s 12A was already granted to the assessee. We also find strength from the argument that the ld. CIT(E) could have considered the application of the assessee as filed under clause iv(B) of section 80G(5). Accordingly, in respectful compliance to the impugned orders, we are of the considered view that matter of the appellant deserves to remission back to the ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of ld. CIT(E) with the directions to re-adjudicate the matter de novo in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(E) to consider the judicial precedents discussed hereinabove, while adjudicating the matter. Due opportunity of being heard shall be accorded to the assessee, who shall be bounden to comply with the statutory notices issued. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.