TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and, therefore, he was not aware of the passing of the order by the Ld.CIT(E) rejecting assessee's application seeking approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act .That he became aware of it only in the month of January 2025 through other trustees of similar trusts whose applications were also rejected. That immediately thereafter, he took step to address the issue and filed appeal before the ITAT. The delay, he contended, therefore, occurred for bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances and he pleaded condonation of the same. The trustee, Ravindran Nair P.P, stated the above on oath by way of an affidavit, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: "I Ravindran Nair P.P, aged about 62 years, being Trustee of the Gandhinagar Ayyapa Pooja Samiti, and presently residing at B-702, Pramukh Parisar Sargasam Gandhinagar, do hereby state on oath and solemn affirmation as under: That I am not at all conversant with the Income Tax matters nor do I operate computers or log in to the Income Tax Portal. Our Trust has never faced Income Tax litigation in the past. It was only recently in the month of January, 2025, that I came to know about rejection of Registration u/s 12A/ Approval u/s 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defeating the cause of justice. That when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It has also been noted that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence. A litigant doesn't stand to benefit by resorting to delay. We make a reference in this regard to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353. 6. Considering the judicial decisions as above and noting that the assessee had adduced sufficient cause for the delay, we consider it a fit case for condoning the delay of 109 days and admitting the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that his solitary contention against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting assessee's application seeking approval u/s.80G(5) of the Act, was that the assessee had inadvertently mentioned the incorrect clause of Section 80G(5) in which the application was filed and though all the facts were, therefore, on record before the Ld. CIT(E) which revealed that the assessee's application shou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought; (B) commenced [*] at any time after the commencement of such activities: ] Provided further that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of an application made under the first proviso, shall, - (i) where the application is made under clause (1) of the said proviso, pass an order in writing granting it approval for a period of five years; (ii) where the application is made under clause (ii) or clause (iii) [or sub-clause (B) of clause (iv)) of the said proviso,- (a) call for such documents or information from it or make such inquiries as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about- (A) the genuineness of activities of such institution or fund and (B) the fulfilment of all the conditions laid down in clauses (1) to (v); (b) after satisfying himself about the genuineness of activities under item (A), and the fulfilment of all the conditions under item (B), of sub-clause (a), - (A) pass an order in writing granting it approval for a period of five years; or (B) if he is not so satisfied, pass an order in writing, rejecting such application and cancelling its approval, if any, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejected the assessee's application merely for the wrong mentioning of Clause under which approval was sought, that too when, he pointed out, all facts were before him which revealed that the mentioning of Clause (iv) was an inadvertent mistake and the assessee ought to have sought final approval as per Clause (iii) of First Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. He contended, therefore, that the rejection of the assessee's application by the Ld. CIT(E) for an inadvertent mistake of mentioning of wrong Clause was, therefore, unjustified and he pleaded that the assessee's application be restored back to the Ld. CIT(E) to be considered in the light of the correct provision of law in this regard. He pointed out that the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Rotary Charity Trust vs. CIT(E) in ITA No.6133/Mum/2024 dated 09.01.2025 had decided an identical issue restoring the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for perusal of the application afresh. Copy of the order was placed before us and our attention was drawn to the findings of the ITAT at Para Nos. 5 to 7 of the order as under: "5. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. Before we proceed to examine the facts in ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has selected the wrong section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before ld. CIT(E) due to incorrect course of action advised, which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts to avoid the impugned rejection. In view of these discussions and respectfully following the above decision of the Kolkata Bench in the case of North Eastern Social Research Centre (supra), we remit the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(E), with a direction to grant final approval to assessee under Clause (iii) to first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, if assessee is otherwise found eligible. We also direct ld. CIT(E) to decide the application of the assessee for final approval as quickly as possible before the expiry of the provisional approval granted in order to enable the assessee to have the benefit of section 80G without any break. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes." 16. Ld. DR, though heavily supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E), was unable to controvert the fact pointed out by the Ld. Couns....