DAMODAR JEW SEVAYATAN,BHADRAK V. CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

ITA 88/CTK/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Damodar Jew Sevayatan Gabasahi Housing Board Colony, Bhadrak, Odisha, which appealed against the order of the CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad, rejecting their application for registration under section 80G of the IT Act, 1961 due to a delay in filing Form 10AB. The assessee argued that the delay was due to oversight, despite previously enjoying the benefits of recognition under section 80G. The CIT(Exemption) had denied the application solely on the basis of the delay. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay plausible and decided to condone the delay, directing the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the application on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846748 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Cuttack
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEERAJA PRADHAN; PR.
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEVA KUMAR; OVERSIGHT
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.88/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2026-27 Damodar Jew Sevayatan Gabasahi Housing Board Colony, Bhadrak, Odissa- 756100. (PAN: AACAD5656Q) Vs CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR Revenue by : Ms. Neeraja Pradhan, Pr. CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2026 ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(Exemption)’] in application no.CIT(Exemption) HYD/2025- 26/12AA/11548 dated 28.11.2025 rejecting Form 10AB for registration u/s 80G of the I.T Act, 1961. 2. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Neeraja Pradhan, Pr. CIT- DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. A perusal of the facts in the present appeal shows that the ld. CIT(Exemption) denied the registration u/s 80G on the ground of delay Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.34/CTK/2026 2 in filing Form 10AB. It was the submission that the Form 10AB ought to have filed before September 2024 but the same filed only on 27.04.2025. It was the prayer that the delay in filing Form 10AB may be condoned and the ld. CIT(Exemption) may be directed to consider the application on merits. 4. The ld. Pr. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The assessee has explained the reasons for the delay in filing Form 10AB. The assessee was enjoying benefit of recognition u/s 80G. The assessee by oversight missed the filing of requisite Form 10AB within time. The reasons given by the ld. AR of the assessee is found to be plausible. Consequently, the delay in filing of Form 10AB before the ld. CIT(Exemption) stands condoned and the issue are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(Exemption) to decide the issue of recognition u/s 80G on merits. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 25th March, 2026. [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 25.03.2026. RS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.34/CTK/2026 3 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "