Provisional 80G registration holder's regular application deemed timely filed under Circular 08/2023 extended deadline

ITAT Pune allowed the appeal against rejection of regular 80G registration application as time-barred. The assessee had provisional registration and filed regular application on 22/08/2023. The tribunal held that Circular 08/2023 extended the deadline to 30/09/2023, even for previously rejected applications. The assessee provided sufficient reasons for delay, and coordinate benches in similar cases granted extended time benefits. The tribunal set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits, directing the application be treated as filed within the prescribed time limit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals under sections 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Rejection of regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) due to deficiencies in documentation.
3. Rejection of regular registration under section 80G(5) as being barred by limitation.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed with a delay of 130 days, which was condoned based on accidental and undeliberate reasons, aligning with judicial precedents. The Tribunal heard both appeals together due to identical issues.

2. Regarding the rejection of regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi), the registering authority rejected the application due to deficiencies in documentation and failure to cure notified deficiencies. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a thorough examination to ensure compliance with laws and charitable objectives. The rejection was set aside due to insufficient time given to the appellant to rectify the deficiencies, violating the principles of natural justice.

3. In the case of rejection of regular registration under section 80G(5), the appellant's application was rejected as being time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the appellant commenced activities before provisional registration and was obligated to file for regular registration within six months. However, the appellant filed the application after the stipulated period. The Tribunal analyzed circulars issued by the CBDT and concluded that the appellant was entitled to an extended time period for filing the application. Citing similar precedents, the Tribunal set aside the rejection and directed the authority to consider the application on its merits.

4. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of adhering to time limits and ensuring a fair opportunity for compliance. The orders were pronounced in open court, providing relief to the appellant in both cases.

---