Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Restores 80G Application to CIT(E) for De-Novo Review, Citing Filing Error

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 4377
Case Name
Aatman Foundation Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
NA
Advertisement

Aatman Foundation Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench has reversed and remanded the rejection of Aatman Foundation’s application for 80G approval (Form 10AB). The foundation’s appeal challenged the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)]’s decision to deem their application non-maintainable due to an alleged violation of eligibility conditions under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT condoned a 109-day delay in filing the appeal.

Aatman Foundation had initially submitted an application in Form 10AB on February 23, 2024, seeking approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B). During the scrutiny process, the CIT(E) noted that to qualify under this specific sub-clause, an institution must have commenced its activities and must not have claimed income exemption under certain clauses of Section 10 or under Sections 11 or 12 for any previous year up to the application date. The CIT(E) queried the Aatman Foundation on this point. In response, the foundation confirmed that it had, in fact, claimed exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 previously, based on an earlier approval granted under Section 12AA. Consequently, the CIT(E) concluded that the eligibility conditions for Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) had been violated, rendering the application non-maintainable.

Before the ITAT, the counsel for Aatman Foundation contended that the application in Form 10AB contained an inadvertent error. It was submitted that the application was mistakenly filed under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G, instead of the correct provision, which should have been clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 80G. The counsel requested that the matter be remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration, taking into account this purported clerical error.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,910

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.