Belated Form 10AB cannot alone deny 80G(5)(iii) approval; authority must examine trust's objects and activities

ITAT Chennai-AT allowed the assessee-trust's appeal for statistical purposes, holding that the time limit in Section 80G(5)(iii) is directory and not a ground to deny exemption solely for belated filing of Form 10AB. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on a technical ground without examining the trust's objects and activities on merits. ITAT directed CIT(E) to reconsider the trust's application under Section 80G(5), in light of the amended provisions and CBDT Circular, after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an application for approval under clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) filed after the timeline specified therein (and after extension by CBDT Circular No.7/2024) is non-maintainable as a matter of law such that the approving authority must reject it without considering merits.

2. Whether the timeline in Section 80G(5)(iii) (and the CBDT extension) is mandatory or directory, and if directory whether the approving authority has power or obligation to condone delay and decide the application on merits.

3. What is the legal effect, for pending or belated applications, of the Finance Act, 2024 insertion of clause (iv) into the first proviso to Section 80G(5) (effective 01/10/2024) which allows trusts to apply "at any time after commencement of its activities".

4. Whether the Tribunal should remit the matter for fresh consideration in light of the amendment (clause (iv)) and the CBDT Circular, and what process (opportunity of hearing) the approving authority must follow on remand.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Maintainability of belated Form 10AB application under Section 80G(5)(iii)

Legal framework: Section 80G(5)(iii) prescribed timeframe for institutions provisionally approved to apply for approval-application to be made at least six months prior to expiry of provisional approval or within six months of commencement of activities, whichever is earlier. CBDT Circular No.7/2024 extended the due date for certain Form 10AB applications to 30/06/2024 by exercise of powers under Section 119.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal referred to a Coordinate Bench decision holding that where clause (iv) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2024, an application filed after 30/06/2024 could be treated under the new clause (iv) and the approving authority directed to decide accordingly. That decision was relied upon by the appellant and accepted by the Tribunal in this matter.

Interpretation and reasoning: The approving authority (ld. CIT(E)) held the application filed 112 days after the extended due date was not maintainable and thus rejected it on procedural ground without considering merits. The Tribunal examined this rejection in light of the statutory amendment that post-dates the earlier timeline and the CBDT circular which temporarily extended deadlines. The Tribunal reasoned that the insertion of clause (iv) by Finance Act, 2024 changed the statutory landscape by providing an avenue to apply "at any time after commencement of its activities", thereby enabling consideration of belated applications under the new provision.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A belated application which would have been barred under the pre-amendment timeframe may be reconsidered under clause (iv) inserted by Finance Act, 2024 where applicable; mere procedural non-compliance before amendment does not mandate rejection without considering the post-amendment statutory regime. Obiter - Observations on whether timelines are directory or mandatory in other contexts beyond the present amendment scenario.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded the ld. CIT(E) should not have rejected the application as non-maintainable without considering the amended provision (clause (iv)) and directed reconsideration in light of that amendment.

Issue 2 - Mandatory versus directory nature of the timeline and power to condone delay

Legal framework: The statute prescribes specified timelines for applying for approval. Finance Act, 2024 introduced explicit sub-clause allowing applications at any time after commencement; Finance Act also separately addressed condonation for 12AB registration but no analogous express condonation was provided for 80G in pre-amendment text.

Precedent treatment: The Coordinate Bench decision treated the post-amendment provision as operative for applications filed earlier but rejected under the pre-amendment timeline, thus effectively treating the earlier timeline as subject to the subsequent legislative change and enabling relief rather than absolute jurisdictional bar.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal avoided a formal pronouncement that the earlier timeline is merely directory in all contexts. Instead it applied the practical effect of the legislative amendment and administrative circular to permit consideration of the application under the new statutory regime. The Tribunal noted the ld. CIT(E)'s reliance on absence of express condonation power pre-amendment but held that the amendment altered the legal position making refusal on technical timeline grounds inappropriate in the circumstances.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where Parliament inserts a provision permitting applications at any time after commencement of activities, an earlier rejection premised on a now-superseded timeline should give way to reconsideration under the new provision. Obiter - No categorical holding that timelines in Section 80G(5)(iii) are always directory or that authorities generally possess inherent condonation power absent statutory provision.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not uphold a strict mandatory bar based on pre-amendment timelines in the particular post-amendment context; it directed reconsideration rather than endorsing outright rejection for delay.

Issue 3 - Effect of CBDT Circular No.7/2024 and Finance Act, 2024 insertion of clause (iv) on pending/belated applications

Legal framework: CBDT Circular exercised powers under Section 119 to extend the due date for filing certain Form 10AB applications to 30/06/2024. Finance Act, 2024 inserted clause (iv) in the first proviso to Section 80G(5) with effect from 01/10/2024 to permit application "at any time after commencement of its activities".

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed the approach of a Coordinate Bench which construed the insertion of clause (iv) as enabling acceptance of applications filed outside the earlier timeline and directed treating such filings under the newly inserted clause when appropriate.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated the CBDT Circular as a temporary administrative relief that extended deadlines to 30/06/2024, but recognized that the subsequent statutory amendment had a broader effect by permanently creating an alternative route (clause (iv)). Given that the application was filed after the circular-extended date but before/around the amendment's effective operation, the Tribunal held it appropriate to direct the approving authority to consider the application in light of clause (iv), thereby aligning administrative decision-making with the amended statutory regime.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Administrative circulars may extend deadlines temporarily but where Parliament subsequently amends the statute to permit applications at any time, authorities should decide pending/belated applications in the light of the amended statutory provisions. Obiter - No general rule on retroactivity beyond the present context.

Conclusion: The Tribunal directed reconsideration of the application under the amended provision and to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing consistent with principles of natural justice and the changed statutory framework.

Issue 4 - Remand, opportunity of hearing and final disposal direction

Legal framework: Principles of administrative law require that applications be decided in accordance with statutory provisions and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing where rights/benefits are affected; Tribunal has power to remit matters for fresh consideration where relevant legal change requires re-examination.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on the Coordinate Bench precedent which directed the approving authority to treat the earlier application as if filed under the new clause and decide in accordance with law.

Interpretation and reasoning: Rather than quashing the decision and directing grant of approval on the merits, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the approving authority to consider the application afresh under clause (iv) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5), after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The Tribunal thus preserved the authority's fact-finding and merit-based discretion while ensuring the application is not summarily rejected on outdated procedural grounds.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where statutory amendment changes the criteria/timeframe applicable to an application, the competent authority should reconsider the application under the amended law after affording opportunity of hearing; the Tribunal may remit for such reconsideration. Obiter - No specific direction on the maximum period for such reconsideration beyond requirements of fairness.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the application to the approving authority to decide in light of the Finance Act, 2024 amendment (clause (iv)), and directed that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded before final disposal.

---