Amrutvahini Gramvikas Mandal Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Pune)
Section 80G Approval Cannot Be Denied for Non-Furnishing of an Old Approval Already Forming Part of Departmental Records
Background of the Dispute
The assessee trust challenged the order dated 27 June 2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, rejecting its application for approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The trust, registered on 11 August 2006, filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 24 December 2025 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5).
During examination of the application, the Commissioner noticed that the assessee had furnished an approval dated 24 September 2021 but had not submitted a copy of its section 80G approval pertaining to the period before 1 April 2021.
From this omission, the Commissioner concluded that the approval obtained in September 2021 had been secured through misrepresentation of facts and was therefore invalid. On that basis, the fresh application was rejected.
The dispute thus concerned whether failure to produce an earlier approval justified rejection when the Department had itself subsequently granted approval under the revised registration framework.
Assessee’s Grievance
The assessee contended that the earlier approval was already available in the Commissioner’s records because it had been issued by the same office.
It further stated that a copy of the earlier approval had been furnished with Form No. 10A filed on 30 August 2021. According to the assessee, the subsequent regular approval for five years had been granted only after verification of that application.
The assessee therefore challenged both the rejection of its application and the conclusion that the September 2021 approval had been obtained through misrepresentation.
Its essential submission was that an approval previously issued by the Department could not be treated as invalid merely because a copy of an older document was not furnished again.
Commissioner’s Reasoning
The Commissioner proceeded on the absence of the pre-April 2021 approval from the documents furnished in the present proceedings.
Although the September 2021 approval was available, the Commissioner treated the failure to furnish the earlier approval as undermining the validity of that subsequent approval.
The rejection recorded in the Tribunal’s order rested on this documentary objection. The order does not record any separate adverse finding concerning the genuineness of the trust’s activities or the actual application of its funds.
Earlier Decision Considered by the Tribunal
The Tribunal found that a similar issue had already been decided by the same Bench in Hamal Mathadi Shramik Vikas Sanstha v. CIT (Exemption), Pune, ITA No. 1355/PUN/2026, dated 13 July 2026.
In that case, section 80G approval had been rejected because the assessee had not furnished its registration under section 12A or section 12AA for the period before 1 April 2021. However, it had produced the subsequent registration granted under section 12A(1)(ac)(i).
The Tribunal had reasoned that the subsequent registration could not have been issued without verification of the earlier registration records. Accordingly, the earlier registration was considered to be available in the Commissioner’s records.
The Department could not summarily reject the application for failure to furnish a document already forming part of its own records.
The earlier decision also emphasised that the subsequent registration had not been withdrawn or rejected. Consequently, the Commissioner’s assertion that it had been obtained through misrepresentation and was invalid was not accepted.
Tribunal’s Decision in the Present Case
Applying that reasoning, the Tribunal held that the facts before it were identical in the relevant respect.
There is a distinction in the documents involved: the earlier decision concerned non-production of an old section 12A/12AA registration, whereas the present case concerned non-production of an old section 80G approval. Nevertheless, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning regarding departmental records and the subsequent approval.
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to grant approval under section 80G.
The appeal was allowed outright. This was a direction to grant approval, rather than a remand for another round of verification.
Author’s Comments
The decision addresses an important administrative issue: an applicant should not suffer rejection merely because it does not reproduce a historical document which the Department had already issued and considered while granting a subsequent approval.
The more serious aspect was the inference of misrepresentation. Non-production of an old approval does not, by itself, establish that a subsequent approval was obtained through false particulars. Such a conclusion requires examination of the relevant records and a proper factual foundation.
The ruling should, however, be read within its factual setting. It does not dispense with the substantive conditions governing section 80G approval. Its focus is the rejection arising from a missing historical document despite the existence of a subsequent departmental approval.
For practitioners, the decision supports a challenge where the authority overlooks its own earlier records and treats a documentary omission as proof of invalidity. Maintaining copies of historical approvals and Form 10A attachments remains useful, but the Department must also examine the records in its possession before drawing an adverse conclusion.
Cases Discussed
- Hamal Mathadi Shramik Vikas Sanstha vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune — ITA No.1355/PUN/2026, order dated 13.07.2026 (ITAT Pune). The Tribunal followed this decision in directing grant of approval under section 80G.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.06.2026 of the Ld. CIT(Exemption), Pune rejecting the application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under:
1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned CIT (Exemption) – Pune erred in rejecting the application of the assessee for seeking approval under section 80G merely on the ground that the assessee trust failed to provide the copy of approval granted under section 80G prior to 01.04.2021 without appreciating the fact that it is already in his record as his office only issued the said approval. He also ignored the fact that the copy of the said approval has been duly filed by the assessee along with Form 10A filed on 30.08.2021 and after its verification only, he granted the regular approval for 5 years. Hence, the impugned order may please be set aside and the regular approval may please be granted.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB on 24.12.2025 for approval of the trust under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act. On verification of the details/documents submitted by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee trust was registered on 11.08.2006 and did not furnish the copy of old registration prior to 01.04.2021 u/s 80G(5) but has only submitted a copy of registration obtained on 24.09.2021 u/s 80G(5)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). He, therefore, held that the registration obtained u/s 80G(5)(1) is by mis-representation of facts and therefore stands invalid and as such the assessee has failed to fulfill the prerequisite of the provisions of clause (1) of section 80G(5) of the Act. He, therefore, rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act.
4. Aggrieved with such rejection of approval u/s 80G by Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Ld. CIT(E) in the instant case rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G on the ground that the assessee failed to submit the copy of registration u/s 80G prior to 01.04.2021 but has only submitted a copy of registration obtained on 24.09.2021 u/s 80G(5)(i) of the Act.
6. We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Hamal Mathadi Shramik Vikas Sanstha vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune vide ITA No.1355/PUN/2026 order dated 13.07.2026 to which both of us are parties. In the said order the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act by observing as under:
“5. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Ld. CIT(E) in the instant case rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G on the ground that the assessee failed to submit the copy of registration u/s 12A / 12AA prior to 01.04.2021 but has only submitted a copy of registration obtained on 05.04.2022 u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act. When the Ld. CIT(E) has already verified the registration obtained on 05.04.2022 u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) the same in our opinion could not have been issued without verifying the earlier record granting registration u/s 12A /12AA. We, therefore, find merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the copy of registration u/s 12A / 12AA prior to 01.04.2021 was deemed to be available on record of the Ld. CIT(E) and without that he could not have granted registration on 05.04.2022 u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(E) without due application of mind has summarily rejected the application for grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to submit the copy of registration u/s 12A / 12AA which was already available on record. In view of the above discussion and since the registration has already been granted u/s 12A / 12AA to the assessee and further the registration obtained u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) has not been withdrawn, therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee obtained the same by misrepresentation of facts and therefore invalid is not acceptable.
6. In view of the above discussion and considering the fact that the assessee has obtained the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) which has not been withdrawn or rejected, we, direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant the approval u/s 80G of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.”
7. Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts of the case already decided by the Tribunal, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hamal Mathadi Shramik Vikas Sanstha vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune (supra), we direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th October, 2026.
