<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (6) TMI 1833 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773720</link>
    <description>The Tribunal condoned a 78-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the assessee&#039;s explanation regarding consultant changes and lack of notification to be genuine and without mala fide intent. The main issue involved a trust&#039;s application for renewal of provisional approval under Section 80G, which was rejected by CIT(E) because the trust inadvertently selected clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) due to technical glitches in the online portal. The Tribunal held that rejection on purely technical grounds without providing opportunity to rectify the error violated principles of natural justice. Citing multiple precedents favoring leniency for inadvertent clerical errors, the Tribunal remanded the matter to CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, directing that the application be treated as filed under the correct clause and allowing the assessee opportunity to rectify the error. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:36:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=831934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1833 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773720</link>
      <description>The Tribunal condoned a 78-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the assessee&#039;s explanation regarding consultant changes and lack of notification to be genuine and without mala fide intent. The main issue involved a trust&#039;s application for renewal of provisional approval under Section 80G, which was rejected by CIT(E) because the trust inadvertently selected clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) due to technical glitches in the online portal. The Tribunal held that rejection on purely technical grounds without providing opportunity to rectify the error violated principles of natural justice. Citing multiple precedents favoring leniency for inadvertent clerical errors, the Tribunal remanded the matter to CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, directing that the application be treated as filed under the correct clause and allowing the assessee opportunity to rectify the error. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>