Provisional section 80G certificate holder gets relief despite missing Form 10AB filing deadline

The ITAT Delhi set aside the CIT(E)'s denial of section 80G application where the assessee had received provisional certificate under section 10AC on 25.10.2022 but failed to file Form 10AB within the statutory time limit. The tribunal held that since provisional approval under section 80G was granted until AY 2025-26 with expiry on 31.03.2025, the second limb provisions were inapplicable. The tribunal ruled that procedural time limits are directory, not mandatory, and should serve justice rather than penalize parties. The matter was remitted back to CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB was filed within the prescribed time limit under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the rejection of the application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified due to the alleged delay in filing.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Timeliness of Form 10AB Application

The core issue in this appeal was whether the application in Form 10AB, seeking approval under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, was filed within the prescribed time limit. The appellant argued that the application was filed within the extended deadline as per the "Clarification Calendar No. 6 of 2023" issued by the CBDT, which extended the filing deadline to 30.09.2023. The appellant contended that the application was submitted on 30.09.2023, thus complying with the extended deadline.

The appellant further argued that the provisional approval granted on 25.10.2022 was valid until 31.03.2025, and the application for final approval was timely. The appellant also highlighted that the activities of the organization commenced before the enactment of the Act, rendering the six-month filing requirement from the commencement of activities inapplicable.

Issue 2: Justification of Rejection by CIT(E)

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application on the grounds that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, as the activities of the applicant had commenced prior to FY 2019-20, and the application was not submitted within the extended deadlines provided by various CBDT circulars. The CIT(E) deemed the application non-maintainable without considering its merits.

The appellant challenged this rejection, arguing that the procedural rules should serve the administration of justice and not penalize parties for technicalities. The appellant cited several judicial precedents where similar extensions were treated as directory rather than mandatory, emphasizing that the CBDT's intention was to alleviate genuine hardships faced by charitable institutions.

Conclusion and Tribunal's Decision:

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant circulars, concluded that the procedural rules should not penalize the appellant and that the time limits prescribed in the provisions are directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's circulars extended the deadlines to address genuine hardships, and the appellant's case fell within this scope.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for reconsideration on its merits, directing the CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law within three months. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural technicalities.

Order Pronouncement:

The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 20.08.2024, directing the CIT(E) to expedite the reconsideration of the application in accordance with the Tribunal's findings.

---