CONWEST AND MANJULA S BADANI JAIN HOSPITAL,MUMBAI V. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4517/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Conwest and Manjula S Badani Jain, who appealed against the decision of the CIT (Exemptions) rejecting their application for approval of funds under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was the inadvertent selection of sub-clause (ii) instead of sub-clause (iii) in the application form, which led to the rejection of their application. The assessee argued that this was a bona fide mistake and requested the matter be reconsidered on its merits. The CIT-DR for the revenue suggested that the assessee could reapply with the correct sub-clause. The tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for a decision on the merits, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777221 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2025
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Chamber of Small INDL Associations vs CIT(E) in ITA No. 4833 & 4835/Mum/2025 dated 15.09.2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.A. DHYANI
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRAJ D SHETH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Charitable institution

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4517/MUM/2025 (AY: 2025-26) (Physical hearing) Conwest and Manjula S Badani Jain 8/10 S V Sovani Path, Khadilkar Road, Mumbai – 400004. [PAN: AAATC2249P] Vs CIT (Exemptions) 6th Floor, MTNL Tel Ex Building, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400056. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Niraj D Sheth, Advocate Revenue by Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT -DR Date of Institution 15.07.2025 Date of hearing 17.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 17.09.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(E) in rejecting application for approval of fund under section 80G(5). Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal. However, as per our considered view, the substantial ground of appeal relates to rejection of application on account of selecting sub-clause (ii) instead of sub-clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) while applying for approval. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that due to bona fide and inadvertent error/mistake, the assessee trust while applying for approval of fund under section 80G(5) selected sub-clause (ii) instead of sub-clause (iii) of first proviso. Such inappropriate selection of sub- clause was not fatal. The ld. CIT(E) rejected the application on that ground Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4517/Mum/2025 Conwest And Manjula S Badani Jain Hospital 2 alone. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee fulfilled on requisite conditions and furnished all details at the time of filing online application in Form 10AB. The ld. AR of the assessee in all his fairness submits that ld. CIT(E) has not given his finding on merit, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) to examine the case on merit and allow approval of fund to the assessee. The assessee is ready and willing to furnish all requisite details. The ld. AR further submits that there was a delay of 25 days in filing application under section 80G(5). Such delay may be condoned at this stage. The assessee in fact was required to file such application on or before 30.09.2021, however, the same was filed on 25.10.2024. There are decisions of Tribunal as well as High Courts that when delay in filing appeal is due to bona fide reasons, such delay may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) for the revenue,on the plea of condonation of delay in filing application before ld. CIT(E) submits that there is no finding of ld. CIT(E) on such issue and the assessee cannot hesitate such issue which has not been examined and decided by ld. CIT(E). Therefore, such submission is not tenable at this stage. However, on first submission of ld. AR of the assessee the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue would submit that the assessee is at liberty to file application afresh before ld. CIT(E) by selecting appropriate sub-clause. 4. In rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is running charitable institution including hospital and in case the application for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4517/Mum/2025 Conwest And Manjula S Badani Jain Hospital 3 approval is not allowed from the date of application i.e. in continuity of provisional approval, the assessee may face difficulty in issuing receipts of bonafide donations. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed to restore the matter back with the direction to consider his application afresh. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of ld CIT(E). We find that there is very limited issue for our consideration that assessee/ applicant while filing Form 10AB selected sub-clause (ii) instead sub-clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5). We find that in a series of similar matter either for registration under section 12AB or 80G(5) when there was an error in selecting appropriate sub-clause, it has been consistently held that such defect is not fatal and error is a curable defect and rejection of application on such sole ground is not justified. Similar view was taken by this combination in Chamber of Small INDL Associations vs CIT(E) in ITA No. 4833 & 4835/Mum/2025 dated 15.09.2025. Thus, the appeal of assessee is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) with the direction to consider and decide the application of assessee under section 80G(5) on merit in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing order, the assessee be allowed opportunity of hearing. 6. So far as, other prayer of ld. AR of the assessee for condoning the delay is concerned, we find that there is no such adverse finding which may require our indulgence at this stage. However, the ld. CIT(A) is expected to take sympathetic view if such issue of delay, if any, is considered at the time of considering the application for approval of funds. In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4517/Mum/2025 Conwest And Manjula S Badani Jain Hospital 4 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 17 /09/2025 Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated 17/09/2025 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "