CIT(E) must treat section 80G registration application as filed within statutory time limit after wrongful rejection

ITAT Pune allowed the appeal and directed CIT(E) to treat the application for registration under section 80G as filed within statutory time limit. The tribunal held that CIT(E) erroneously rejected the application on technical grounds without considering the assessee's reply to show cause notice or following binding precedent. The court clarified that existing trusts can apply for regular registration within six months of provisional registration expiry, and the provisional approval remains valid until AY 2024-25 unless cancelled for specific violations. CIT(E) was directed to verify the assessee's eligibility and provide proper opportunity for hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of application for approval/renewal under Section 80G(5) due to alleged delay.
2. Cancellation of provisional registration without due process or opportunity for hearing.
3. Interpretation and application of provisions of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements and adherence to binding precedents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Application for Approval/Renewal under Section 80G(5) Due to Alleged Delay:

The primary issue in this case was whether the application for approval under Section 80G(5) was filed within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application, stating it was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5). The Tribunal found that the assessee had a provisional approval valid until Assessment Year 2024-25 and had applied for regular approval well in advance, as required six months before the expiry of the provisional registration. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had erred by not considering the provisional approval and its validity, which was crucial to determining the timeliness of the application. The Tribunal clarified that the requirement to apply "within six months of commencement of its activities" is intended for newly formed trusts without prior activities, not for existing trusts with provisional approval.

2. Cancellation of Provisional Registration Without Due Process or Opportunity for Hearing:

The assessee contended that the cancellation of provisional registration, granted on 06/04/2022, was done without following due process and without affording an opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) did not provide any reasons related to the genuineness of the activities or violations of conditions prescribed in Section 80G(5). The Tribunal emphasized that the provisional approval could only be cancelled on specific violations, and the CIT(E) failed to consider the submissions made by the assessee in response to the show cause notice.

3. Interpretation and Application of Provisions of Section 80G of the Income Tax Act:

The Tribunal undertook a detailed interpretation of Section 80G(5), particularly focusing on the proviso concerning the application timeline for regular registration. The Tribunal highlighted the legislative intent behind the introduction of provisional registration in the Finance Bill 2020, which aimed to facilitate the registration of newly formed trusts. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E)'s interpretation was flawed, as it would prevent long-standing trusts from applying for registration if they had not done so previously. The Tribunal stressed that the correct interpretation allows existing trusts to apply for regular registration within six months of the expiry of provisional registration.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements and Adherence to Binding Precedents:

The Tribunal criticized the CIT(E) for not considering the binding decision of the ITAT Pune in the case of T.B. Lulla Charitable Foundation and for not addressing the submissions made by the assessee. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union Of India And Others vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation, which mandates adherence to jurisdictional tribunal precedents. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application as filed within the statutory time and to verify the assessee's eligibility as per the Act, ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present necessary documents.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(E) to reassess the application, considering it filed within the prescribed time limit and verifying the eligibility of the assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of correct interpretation of legislative provisions, adherence to procedural fairness, and compliance with binding judicial precedents.

---