TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o consider the applications filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing both the appeals before us. In ITA No. 323/Ahd/2025, the appeal has been filed against the rejection order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad, under section 12AB of the Act. The assessee was required to file the appeal within the statutory limitation period of 60 days. However, the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 156 days. Similarly, in ITA No. 324/Ahd/2025, which pertains to the rejection of approval under section 80G vide order dated 15.07.2024, the delay in filing the appeal is 151 days. 3. The explanation offered by the assessee, as supported by the affidavit sworn by Shri Diveyesh Trivedi, Director of the assessee, is that instead of pursuing the appellate remedy before the Tribunal, the assessee, under a bona fide belief based on CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024, opted to file fresh applications for registration/approval within the extended timeline provided therein, i.e., up to 30.06.2024. It is the assessee's submission that it genuinely believed the said Circular offered a remedial route and accordingly acte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The particulars of these applications, including the date of filing, date of opportunity, and order date of the CIT(E), are detailed in the tabular statement below. 6. While disposing of the application under section 12AB, the learned CIT(E), Ahmedabad, rejected the application by invoking clause (vi)(B) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. Though no conclusive finding was recorded as to whether such exemptions were claimed specifically under section 11, 12 or clause (23C) of section 10, the CIT(E) treated the claim as falling within the mischief of clause (vi)(B) and held the application to be non-maintainable on that basis. The application under section 80G, though filed simultaneously, was not examined independently. It was rejected by way of an implicit and consequential finding linked to the disposal of the 12AB application. No separate discussion or satisfaction was recorded on the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) of the Act. 7. Subsequently, the assessee filed a second set of applications in Form 10AB for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. These applications were also processed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for grant of registration u/s 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 as no sufficient opportunities provided to the appellant to furnish the details called for. 3. That, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption) is not justified in cancelling the provisional approval already granted u/s 12A of the I.T. Act, only for the reason that the appellant could not comply to the notices issued for furnishing of certain details /documents. 4. That, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption) is not justified in treating the present for registration filed as non-maintainable which is against the of equity and fair play." ITA No. 294/Ahd/2025 "1. On facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ClT(Exemption) is not justified in rejecting the application of the appellant filed for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the l.T. Act, 1961. 2. That, the Hon'ble CIT(Exemption) is not justified in rejecting the application of the appellant filed for grant of approval u/s 80G (5)(iii) of the l.T. Act,1961 for the sole reason that registration application filed by the Foundation u/s 12A of the Act has been rejected vide order dated 24.12.2024 which he considered as 'pre-requisite' and caused 'double whamm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the intention of complying and rectifying the earlier shortcoming. Thus, the second application was filed only as a consequence of the first rejection and was not an independent fresh claim. The AR also submitted that the CIT(E) gave only one opportunity before rejecting the applications which is against the principle of natural justice. It was further submitted that in both rounds, the application under section 80G was neither independently examined nor any finding recorded on the eligibility under section 80G(5), making the rejection non-speaking and unsustainable in law. The AR pleaded that the orders passed by the CIT(E) may be set aside and the matters be restored for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity. 11. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) placed reliance on the orders passed by the learned CIT(E), Ahmedabad, and supported the reasons recorded therein for rejecting the applications filed by the assessee under section 12AB and section 80G. However, the DR raised no objection in remanding the matter back to the file of CIT(E) to decide a fresh. 12. We have considered the material on record and rival submissions, including the tabulated chr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rose from the assessee's subsequent filing of Form 10AB on 15.06.2024 under the impression that CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 permitted a fresh application where earlier applications had been rejected or marked defective. However, the CIT(E), in the order dated 24.12.2024, held that the earlier rejection was on merits and not due to technical defects such as delay or wrong section code, and thus the fresh application was not covered by the Circular. Accordingly, the second application was held to be non-maintainable. The corresponding 80G application was again rejected without independent reasoning or analysis, merely by referencing the section 12AB rejection. 16. In our considered opinion, the second set of applications filed by the assessee was not in the nature of an independent claim but was a remedial measure taken in good faith to address the procedural rejection of the first application. Once it is found that the earlier order dated 10.07.2024 rejecting the first application under section 12AB was based on an unverified assumption and without adequate opportunity, and the 80G rejection was nonspeaking, the only proper course is to restore those matters to the C....