The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, has set aside an order rejecting an animal welfare foundation’s application for approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of delayed filing. 

The Bench of Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) observed that the foundation’s application deserved favourable consideration, particularly because registration under Section 12A had already been granted. However, the Tribunal did not directly grant Section 80G approval and instead restored the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.

Buy Now: Direct tax (Income Tax) E-Magazine September 2026

The bench directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account judicial precedents addressing procedural delays and the alternative application route under Section 80G(5). 

The appellant/assessee sought the approval under Section 80G. The foundation was reportedly engaged in charitable activities for destitute and abandoned animals.

The Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that it had not been filed within the time prescribed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5).

The foundation challenged the rejection as being based entirely on a procedural lapse. It contended that the Commissioner had not rejected its application on the basis of its objects, the genuineness of its activities, or non-compliance with the substantive conditions for approval.

The foundation submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor wilful. According to its explanation, the accountant handling the applications had proceeded under the bona fide belief that the filing timelines for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G were identical.

Its counsel pointed out that Section 12A registration had been approved on September 22, 2025, while the Section 80G application was rejected the following day.

The foundation argued that a technical mistake should not prevent a charitable institution from obtaining consideration under a beneficial provision. It also relied on CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 dated April 25, 2024, concerning difficulties faced in filing Forms 10A and 10AB.

Alternatively, it requested that its application be considered under clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5).

The Revenue opposed the appeal and relied on the Commissioner’s rejection order.

The Tribunal examined earlier decisions dealing with delayed applications for Section 80G approval, including Prachin Shri Agarwal Digambar Jain Panchayat and the Chennai Bench’s decision in Rotary Magnum Trust.

The precedents discussed in the order emphasised that procedural requirements should serve the administration of justice and that charitable institutions should not be denied consideration merely because of technical filing deficiencies.

They also addressed the hardship recognised by the CBDT through extensions of filing deadlines. In particular, the decisions discussed treating the relevant timelines as directory in the context of the transition to the revised registration and approval regime.

The Tribunal found that the facts of the foundation’s case were identical to those considered in the precedents reproduced in its order.

The Bench also found merit in the foundation’s submission that the Commissioner could have considered its application under clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5).

In reaching this conclusion, it referred to decisions that had considered delayed applications under the alternative statutory route rather than rejecting them outright under the provision initially invoked.

The Tribunal further observed that Section 80G approval should have been considered favourably in view of the Section 12A registration already granted to the foundation. This observation formed part of its reasoning for restoring the application for reconsideration; it did not amount to an automatic grant of approval.

The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to adjudicate the matter de novo in accordance with law and to consider the judicial precedents discussed in the judgment.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Same Income Can’t Be Taxed Repeatedly Across Companies: ITAT