K VINOTHKUMAR,COIMBATORE V. ITO, NCW-2(4), COIMBATORE

SA 99/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Virudhunagar S Velaichamy Nadar Polytechnic Managing Board, which filed four Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) seeking recall/modification of orders related to their income tax appeals. The primary issue was the rejection of their application for registration under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, which is crucial for tax exemptions. The Tribunal had previously directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to reconsider the application for registration under section 12AB, which was a prerequisite for the 80G registration. The Tribunal found no mistake in their earlier decision and dismissed the applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792634 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act, Section 12AB of the Act, Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act, Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act, Section 80G(5) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P.M. KATHIR; G. AKASH
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी जॉज जॉज क े, उपा एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद' क े सम BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A Nos.98, 99, 114 & 115/Chny/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos.155, 156, 153 & 154/Chny/2024) Virudhunagar S Velaichamy Nadar Polytechnic Managing Board, Virudhunagar – 626 001. Tamil Nadu Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. [PAN: AAATV 1687Q] (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीला थ* की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate & Shri G. Akash, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha, Addl. CIT सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 02.12.2025 घोषणा की ता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : By way of these four Miscellaneous Applications (MAs), the assessee seeks to recall/modification of the orders passed in ITA Nos.153 to 156/Chny/2025 dated 26.05.2025. Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos.98, 99, 114 & 115/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R.) for the assessee submitted that the assessee wishes to withdraw MA Nos. 99, 114 & 115/Chny/2025. 3. With regard to MA No.98/Chny/2025 arising out of ITA No.155/Chny/2025, the Ld. A.R. prayed for recall/modification of the order dated 26.05.2025 on the following grounds: a. Firstly, it is submitted that since the Petitioner is an old trust, the Petitioner could not get continuation of registration filed u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act as the provision sets abar that the application has to be filed within 6 month before the expiry of the provisional registration or 6 month after the commencement of activities whichever is earlier. The Petitioner cannot fulfil this condition. b. Secondly, if the Application filed u/s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act is considered, the Petitioner would be granted registration for A.Yrs. 2024-25 to 2029-30. However, the registration u/s. 12AB of the Act will be available to the Petitioner only for the A.Yrs.2022-23 to 2026-27. Thus for 3 years the Petitioner would not have a registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and thus the 80G registration would be rejected on this ground too. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the order of the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The prayer of the Ld. A.R. to withdraw MA Nos. 99, 114 & 115/Chny/2025 is accepted, and the said MAs are dismissed as withdrawn. Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos.98, 99, 114 & 115/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 6. As regards MA No.98/Chny/2025, arising from ITA No.155/Chny/2025, the Bench in the original order had recorded as under: “14. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for approval for the reason that the assessee does not have valid registration for 5 years u/s 12AB of the Act. We have already directed the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the assessee’s application filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act as one made under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act and decide the grant of registration u/s 12AB(1)(a) of the Act. In light of that, the Ld. CIT(E) is directed to consider the application under Section 80G of the Act as having been filed under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act and decide the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.” 7. We find that application for approval u/s 80G(5) (iii) of the Act was filed on 28.06.2024, and the Ld CIT(E) has rejected application as assessee does not have valid 12AB registration. In the appeal order passed, the Ld CIT(E) was directed to consider the application after deciding the application for registration u/s 12AB which was restored back to him. In fact this was the prayer of Ld. AR before us. We, therefore, do not find any mistake apparent in our order and MA No.98/Chny/2025 filed by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos.98, 99, 114 & 115/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: 8. In the result, M.A Nos.98, 115 & 99/Chny/2025 filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn and the MA No.98/Chny/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced on 04th day of December, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज जॉज क े) (George George K) उपा / Vice President (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा सद' /Accountant Member चे\u0010नई/Chennai, \u0013दनांक/Dated: 04th December, 2025. EDN/- आदेश क\u0016 \bितिल\u0019प अ\u001aे\u0019षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Coimbatore 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "