RUDRA FOUNDATION MUMBAI,MUMBAI V. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 4472/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Rudra Foundation appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) which rejected their application for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of late filing. The Tribunal found that the initial application was filed within the time limit but was rejected due to a clerical error in mentioning the correct section. The subsequent application was also rejected for being late, despite it being filed immediately after correcting the error. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Sarda Mission Sevasram Viveknagar, where it was held that technical mistakes should not penalize the assessee, and the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify such mistakes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783303 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Sarda Mission Sevasram Viveknagar, Chaitanyapur Vs. CIT(E), Kolkata
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMA SHANKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUPENDRA SHAH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4472/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2024-25 Rudra Foundation Flat No. 4 Floor, Plot No. 386, Cleden Holm, 15th Road TPS III, Bandra W, Mumbai – 400050. PAN – AADTR5879F Vs CIT(E) 601, 6th Floor, Cumballa Hills MTNL TE Bldg, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 27.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(E) for the assessment year 2024-25. 2. By way of filing this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(E) in rejecting the application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act. 3. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before us and Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 4472/Mum/2025 Rudra Foundation, Mumbai. also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that the application for seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act was rejected by Ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the same was not filed within time. 4. Therefore now for deciding this ground, we have gone through the facts of the present case and documents placed before us and after analyzing the same we noticed that initially the assessee had applied for renewal u/s 80G approval on 02.05.2024, which was within time, but the same was rejected on the ground that the application was made mentioning wrong section vide order dated 19.10.2024. 5. However, the assessee filed another application with correct section immediately but the same was also rejected citing the reason of late filing. It is important to mention here that initially when the application for seeking approval was first time filed by the assessee on 02.05.2024. The same was within time as the time for filing the same was till 30.06.2024 however the said application was rejected on account of the fact that assessee had inadvertently mentioned wrong section vide order dated 19.10.2024. We noticed that before rejecting the said application, Ld. CIT(E) had not provided any opportunity to the assessee to correct or amend the said application by mentioning the correct section. Therefore the assessee again filed another application with correct section, thus in this way there was no delay on the part of assessee in filing the application for seeking approval u/s 80G as the second application cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in continuation of the earlier application filed by the assessee which was undisputedly within time i.e 02.05.2024, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 4472/Mum/2025 Rudra Foundation, Mumbai. in this regard reliance is being placed upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Sarda Mission Sevasram Viveknagar, Chaitanyapur Vs. CIT(E), Kolkata wherein it was held as under: 4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. In this case, the application of the assessee for final approval u/s 80G of the Act has been rejected because of technical reasons for which the assessee cannot be faulted with. All the facts were before ld. CIT (Exemption) when the assessee for the first time applied for the final approval u/s 80G of the Act. Merely, because the assessee out of inadvertence had mentioned another Clause, the same was not an illegality but rather the same was a rectifiable mistake. The facts were on the record that the assessee before the amendment was already approved as a charitable institution u/s 12A as well as 80G of the Act. The assessee duly applied for provisional registration in view of the amended provisions. The same was also granted to the assessee. The next course for the assessee was to apply for the final registration u/s 80G of the Act which was also duly complied by the assessee within the time limit prescribed for the same. However, due to the mistake in mentioning the proper Clause, the assessee was told to withdraw the application and file a fresh application. The assessee filed the fresh application without any delay. However, ld. CIT (Exemption) completely ignored the events which occurred from the date of filing of the application for final approval and leading to the filing of the fresh application because of the technical mistakes. In fact, instead of getting the application withdrawn, ld. CIT (Exemption) was supposed to give opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistake i.e. the mentioning of the appropriate Clause. Ld. CIT (Exemption) even could have suo-moto passed an order treating the said application under the relevant ‘Clause-iii’ of Section 80G(5) of the Act. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the fresh application is, hereby, condoned. It is directed that the application of the assessee for final registration may be treated as filed within the time limit prescribed and the time consumed by the assessee in filing the revised application will Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 4472/Mum/2025 Rudra Foundation, Mumbai. not be taken into consideration. The matter is accordingly restored to the file of ld. CIT (Exemption) with a direction that ld. CIT (Exemption) will pass an order on merits irrespective of the delay occurred in filing the fresh application for final approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. 6. Therefore taking into considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that in this case the assessee had applied for approval u/s 80G of the Act which was rejected because of technical reasons for which assessee cannot be faulted with. Since all the facts were before Ld. CIT(E) when the assessee for the first time applied for approval u/s 80G of the Act. Merely because the assessee out of inadvertently had mentioned wrong section, the same was not an illegality but rather the same was a rectifiable mistake. Therefore Ld. CIT(E) instead of rejecting the said application ought to have given opportunity to the assessee to rectify the said mistake i.e mentioning of appropriate section by not doing so, the valuable right of the assessee has been curtailed. 7. Therefore although assessee filed another application the same could not have been treated as filed beyond the period of limitation because the said application is to be read in continuation of the earlier application which was admittedly filed within limitation. Hence considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay if any in filing the second application before Ld. CIT(E) is hereby condoned. Ld. CIT(E) is directed to adjudicate the second application filed by assessee for grant of 80G approval on merits. With these directions we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT((E) to decide the same in terms indicated above. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 4472/Mum/2025 Rudra Foundation, Mumbai. 8. Before parting, I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the CIT(E) independently in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/11/2025 SdSd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 04/11/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "