CARE AND SHARE CHARITABLE TRUST,TRICHY V. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

ITA 2001/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Care and Share Charitable Trust, which appealed against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) rejecting their application for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to a two-day delay in filing. The Tribunal considered the benevolent nature of the provision and the recent legislative amendments that allow for more flexibility in such applications. The Tribunal referenced a similar case where a favorable decision was made under comparable circumstances, thus directing the CIT(E) to reconsider the application under the amended provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783569 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.931/Chny/2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS; C.I.T
• Assessee Lawyers: K. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM; I.T.P
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 11; 12; 10; 80G

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘ बी’ \u000eयायपीठ, चे\u000eनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI \u0015ी जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े, उपा\u001aय\u001b एवं \u0015ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद%य क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:2001/Chny/2025 Care and Share Charitable Trust, 12, Manithalayam, 8th Cross, Bharathy Nagar, Vayalur Road, Tiruchirapalli – 620 017. vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai. [PAN: AAATC-6377-N] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, I.T.P. ()यथ' क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार ख/Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”), rejecting the approval sought u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The assessee is a trust and filed an application dated 02.10.2024 in Form 10AB under Rule 11AA, seeking approval under (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act. Subsequently, it had requested vide letter dated 02.06.2025 to change the section code from clause (ii) to clause (iii). The CIT(E) rejected the said Printed from counselvise.com :-2-: ITA. No:2001 /Chny/2025 application dated 02.10.2024 on the sole ground of delay in filing the application by 2 days. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The case of the ld.CIT(E) is as follows: The assessee had obtained its provisional approval u/s.80G of the Act in Form 10AC dated 27.09.2022 from A.Y.2023-24 to A.Y.2025-26. Accordingly, the application for approval u/s.80G in Form 10AB in terms of clause (iii) of proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act ought to have been filed on or before 30.09.2024, which is 6 months prior to 31.03.2025 pertaining to Previous Year 2024-25 and Assessment Year 2025-26. But the assessee had filed the application for approval u/s.80G only on 02.10.2024, with a delay of 2 days. There is no provision in the Act to condone the delay in filing Form 10AB seeking approval u/s.80G, though the Act provides the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10AB seeking registration u/s.12AB of the Act. 4. Before the ld.CIT(E), the assessee contended that there was some confusion in the clause under which the form had to be filled and that since the assessee filed the form without any professional assistance, there was a delay of just 2 days in filing the same. Despite the assessee’s explanation, the ld.CIT(E) had rejected the application and hence the present appeal. 5. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld.CIT(E) and further submitted that the provision being a benevolent one, must be liberally interpreted in favour of the assessee and a delay of just 2 days are not so significant, so as to deny the approval u/s.80G of the Act. It was further submitted that it is not mandatory that approval must be sought within the specified time limit and the provision is only directory in nature and if at all it is held as mandatory, powers exist Printed from counselvise.com :-3-: ITA. No:2001 /Chny/2025 with the CIT(E) to condone unintended delays. The Ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing the application may be condoned. 6. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the views taken by the ld.CIT(E) and argued that the rejection is justified. The Ld.DR further submitted that when the law is explicit in not providing the ld.CIT(E) with the power to condone the delay in filing relevant application u/s.80G, while expressly providing the powers of condoning the delay when it comes to section 12AB, the action of the ld.CIT(E) is perfectly in order. The Ld.DR thus prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(E). We find that the sole issue for consideration before us is that whether the assessee is eligible for the approval u/s.80G or not. 8. We find that the application has been made under clause (iii) of the proviso to sub section 5 of section 80G (as narrated in the facts above, application originally made under clause (ii) was requested by the assessee to be substituted with clause (iii) and hence we treat the application made under clause (ii) as an application made under clause (iii)), and clause (iii) reads as under, “where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier”. It can be seen that w.e.f. 01.10.2024 vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, Clause (iv) reads as under: “(in any other case) where activities of the institution or fund have-- (A) not commenced, at least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year from which the said approval is sought; (B) commenced (and where no income or part thereof of the said institution or fund has been excluded from the total income on account of applicability of sub-clause (iv) or sub- clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause Printed from counselvise.com :-4-: ITA. No:2001 /Chny/2025 (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 or section 11 or section 12 for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application), at any time after the commencement of such activities: (the words that are struck off are omitted vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.)” 9. The Legislature, in its wisdom had chosen to omit the rigorous conditions that originally stood prior to the amendment. It can be seen that it is an enabling amendment, wherein any charitable institution, where its activities have commenced and where, even if it had claimed income exemptions specific to charitable institution, can still apply for registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act. Accordingly, it permits any assessee, which had missed the timeline specified under clause (iii), to apply under clause (iv) sub clause (B) of the 1st proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 80G of the Act. Consequent to this amendment, if the assessee applies under clause (iv) today, subject to the fulfilment of other conditions, would not be ineligible for the approval, owing to the limitation of time which is specific to clause (iii). It is further pertinent to note that at the time of filing the application on 02.10.2024, the benefit of (iv) was available in the statute books. Further, we note that this Tribunal has already decided this issue in favour of the assessee in similar set of facts and circumstances in its order in ITA No.931/Chny/2025 dated 12.09.2025. 10. With this observation and respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal (supra), in the interest of justice, we direct the ld.CIT(E) to treat the application made on 02.10.2024 under clause (iii) of 1st proviso to subsection 5 of section 80G, as an application made under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of 1st proviso to sub-section 5 of section 80G of the Act and verify all other conditions stipulated under the Act for grant of registration u/s.80G of the Act and accordingly dispose of the application on merits, in accordance with law. For the purpose of the time limit within which the application Printed from counselvise.com :-5-: ITA. No:2001 /Chny/2025 must be disposed of by the ld.CIT(E), as per 4th proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, the starting point must be the date on which this order is served to the revenue. 11. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 04th November, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज\u0018 जॉज\u0018 क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपा\u001aय\u001b /VICE PRESIDENT (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद%य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे\u000eनई/Chennai, /दनांक/Dated, the 04th November, 2025 SP आदेश क* (1त2ल3प अ4े3षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ'/Appellant 2. ()यथ'/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु5त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. 3वभागीय (1त1न ध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "