My Form 10AB for final approval under s.80G was rejected for a delay of two days and the CIT(E) says he has no power to condone it for 80G. Is that right, and is there a way round?
The CIT(E) is right that s.80G carries no condonation power — the proviso inserted in 2024 permitting condonation sits in s.12A(1)(ac) and governs registration, not 80G approval. The way round is clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) — a clause that is older than the 2024 amendment and was not inserted by it, but which the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 opened up with effect from 1 October 2024 by omitting the words that had confined item (B) to an institution no part of whose income had been excluded under sub-clause (iv), (v), (vi) or (via) of s.10(23C) or under s.11 or s.12 for any previous year ending on or before the date of application — so that an institution whose activities have commenced may now apply at any time after commencement; the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the out-of-time clause (iii) application as one made under clause (iv)(B) and to decide it on the merits.
Decided by the ITAT (George George K, Vice President and S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member — ITAT Chennai "B" Bench) on 2025-11-04, reported as ITA No.2001/Chny/2025. It bears on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 12AB, section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Deductions & Disallowances matters.
Every trust that took provisional approval in Form 10AC and then missed the clause (iii) window faces the same objection, and the Revenue's argument is a strong one on its face: the legislature gave a condonation power for s.12AB and deliberately withheld it for s.80G, so the omission must be given effect. This decision does not answer that argument — it goes round it. The relief is available only where activities have in fact commenced, and only where the application was made, or can now be made, at a time when clause (iv)(B) was on the statute; an application disposed of before 1 October 2024 does not obviously attract it. Note the practical direction on time: the Tribunal held that for the purpose of the time limit in the fourth proviso to s.80G(5) within which the CIT(E) must dispose of the application, time runs from the date its order is served on the Revenue.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The trust obtained provisional approval under s.80G in Form 10AC dated 27 September 2022 for AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26. Under clause (iii) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) the application for final approval had to be made at least six months before the expiry of the provisional approval, which the CIT(E) computed as 30 September 2024. The trust filed Form 10AB on 2 October 2024 — a delay of two days — originally under clause (ii), and by letter dated 2 June 2025 asked that the section code be changed to clause (iii). Before the CIT(E) it explained that there had been confusion about the clause under which the form had to be filed and that it had filed without professional assistance. By order dated 26 June 2025 the CIT(E) rejected the application on the sole ground of the two-day delay, holding that there is no provision in the Act to condone delay in filing Form 10AB for s.80G approval although the Act does provide that power for registration under s.12AB. The Departmental Representative supported that order and argued expressly that where the law provides a condonation power for s.12AB and withholds it for s.80G, the CIT(E)'s action was in order.
Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Treating the application as one made under clause (iii), the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application made on 2 October 2024 as an application under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso to s.80G(5), to verify all other conditions for approval and to dispose of it on the merits in accordance with law; and it held that for the purpose of the time limit under the fourth proviso to s.80G(5) within which the CIT(E) must dispose of the application, the starting point is the date on which the Tribunal's order is served on the Revenue (paras 10 and 11).
The Tribunal first accepted the substitution of the section code, treating the application originally made under clause (ii) as one made under clause (iii) (para 8). It then set out clause (iv) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) as it stands with effect from 1 October 2024 by virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024, under which an institution whose activities have commenced may apply at any time after commencement, the earlier restrictive words having been omitted (para 8). At paragraph 9 it reasoned that the legislature had chosen to omit the rigorous conditions that stood before the amendment; that clause (iv) is an enabling provision permitting any institution which had missed the clause (iii) timeline to apply under clause (iv)(B); that an assessee applying under clause (iv) today would not be ineligible by reason of the clause (iii) time limit; and, significantly, that at the time the application was filed on 2 October 2024 the benefit of clause (iv) was already available on the statute book. It followed its own earlier decision in ITA No.931/Chny/2025 dated 12 September 2025 (paras 9 and 10). The Tribunal did not decide whether the clause (iii) time limit is mandatory or directory, and did not accept or reject the assessee's alternative submission that the CIT(E) has an inherent power to condone.
The Legislature, in its wisdom had chosen to omit the rigorous conditions that originally stood prior to the amendment.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe CIT(E) is right that s.80G carries no condonation power — the proviso inserted in 2024 permitting condonation sits in s.12A(1)(ac) and governs registration, not 80G approval. The way round is clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) — a clause that is older than the 2024 amendment and was not inserted by it, but which the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 opened up with effect from 1 October 2024 by omitting the words that had confined item (B) to an institution no part of whose income had been excluded under sub-clause (iv), (v), (vi) or (via) of s.10(23C) or under s.11 or s.12 for any previous year ending on or before the date of application — so that an institution whose activities have commenced may now apply at any time after commencement; the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the out-of-time clause (iii) application as one made under clause (iv)(B) and to decide it on the merits. This was decided by the ITAT (George George K, Vice President and S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member — ITAT Chennai "B" Bench) and bears on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 12AB, section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No.2001/Chny/2025. Every trust that took provisional approval in Form 10AC and then missed the clause (iii) window faces the same objection, and the Revenue's argument is a strong one on its face: the legislature gave a condonation power for s.12AB and deliberately withheld it for s.80G, so the omission must be given effect. This decision does not answer that argument — it goes round it. The relief is available only where activities have in fact commenced, and only where the application was made, or can now be made, at a time when clause (iv)(B) was on the statute; an application disposed of before 1 October 2024 does not obviously attract it. Note the practical direction on time: the Tribunal held that for the purpose of the time limit in the fourth proviso to s.80G(5) within which the CIT(E) must dispose of the application, time runs from the date its order is served on the Revenue. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Establish and document the date your activities commenced — clause (iv)(B) is available only to an institution whose activities have commenced, and the date is what the CIT(E) will test.
The trust obtained provisional approval under s.80G in Form 10AC dated 27 September 2022 for AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26. Under clause (iii) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) the application for final approval had to be made at least six months before the expiry of the provisional approval, which the CIT(E) computed as 30 September 2024. The trust filed Form 10AB on 2 October 2024 — a delay of two days — originally under clause (ii), and by letter dated 2 June 2025 asked that the section code be changed to clause (iii). Before the CIT(E) it explained that there had been confusion about the clause under which the form had to be filed and that it had filed without professional assistance. By order dated 26 June 2025 the CIT(E) rejected the application on the sole ground of the two-day delay, holding that there is no provision in the Act to condone delay in filing Form 10AB for s.80G approval although the Act does provide that power for registration under s.12AB. The Departmental Representative supported that order and argued expressly that where the law provides a condonation power for s.12AB and withholds it for s.80G, the CIT(E)'s action was in order. The matter was decided on 2025-11-04 by the ITAT (George George K, Vice President and S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member — ITAT Chennai "B" Bench). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Treating the application as one made under clause (iii), the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application made on 2 October 2024 as an application under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso to s.80G(5), to verify all other conditions for approval and to dispose of it on the merits in accordance with law; and it held that for the purpose of the time limit under the fourth proviso to s.80G(5) within which the CIT(E) must dispose of the application, the starting point is the date on which the Tribunal's order is served on the Revenue (paras 10 and 11).
The Tribunal first accepted the substitution of the section code, treating the application originally made under clause (ii) as one made under clause (iii) (para 8). It then set out clause (iv) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) as it stands with effect from 1 October 2024 by virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024, under which an institution whose activities have commenced may apply at any time after commencement, the earlier restrictive words having been omitted (para 8). At paragraph 9 it reasoned that the legislature had chosen to omit the rigorous conditions that stood before the amendment; that clause (iv) is an enabling provision permitting any institution which had missed the clause (iii) timeline to apply under clause (iv)(B); that an assessee applying under clause (iv) today would not be ineligible by reason of the clause (iii) time limit; and, significantly, that at the time the application was filed on 2 October 2024 the benefit of clause (iv) was already available on the statute book. It followed its own earlier decision in ITA No.931/Chny/2025 dated 12 September 2025 (paras 9 and 10). The Tribunal did not decide whether the clause (iii) time limit is mandatory or directory, and did not accept or reject the assessee's alternative submission that the CIT(E) has an inherent power to condone. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The Legislature, in its wisdom had chosen to omit the rigorous conditions that originally stood prior to the amendment." The decision followed or applied ITA No.931/Chny/2025 dated 12.09.2025 (ITAT Chennai) — followed; assessee not named in the order.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-11-04 and is reported as ITA No.2001/Chny/2025. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 80G, section 80G(5), section 12AB, section 12A(1)(ac), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Treating the application as one made under clause (iii), the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application made on 2 October 2024 as an application under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso to s.80G(5), to verify all other conditions for approval and to dispose of it on the merits in accordance with law; and it held that for the purpose of the time limit under the fourth proviso to s.80G(5) within which the CIT(E) must dispose of the application, the starting point is the date on which the Tribunal's order is served on the Revenue (paras 10 and 11). It arises in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 12AB, section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by George George K, Vice President and S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member — ITAT Chennai "B" Bench. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If a clause (iii) application is pending or has been rejected for delay, ask in writing that it be treated as an application under clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to s.80G(5), and say expressly that clause (iv)(B) was on the statute book when the application was filed if that is the case. Do not rely on the s.12A(1)(ac) condonation proviso for an 80G application; argue 80G on clause (iv)(B) and on the merits instead. Where the section code in the form is wrong, apply to substitute the correct clause before the CIT(E) rather than leaving it to the appeal — the Tribunal treated the substitution request as effective. If the CIT(E) has already rejected the application, note the date on which the Tribunal's order is served on the Revenue, because that is the starting point for the statutory disposal period.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator returns nothing. A case-name search returns seven documents, but all the others concern an unrelated Vijayawada trust of the same name in Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court litigation (including Noel Harper v. Union of India). Nothing treats the holding that the clause (iv)(B) route under s.80G remains open after the deadline is missed, and no appeal to the Madras High Court was traced. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
At paragraph 8 the Tribunal reproduces clause (iv) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) with a parenthetical note that the words shown struck through were omitted by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024; that rendering, brackets and all, is the Tribunal's own and I have not reproduced it as statutory text. The Tribunal identifies the earlier decision it follows only as "ITA No.931/Chny/2025 dated 12.09.2025", without naming the assessee. The order runs to eleven numbered paragraphs, continuous, with no quoted order inside it. A Chennai bench decision on the same route two months earlier, Sri Sastha Charitable Trust v CIT (Exemption) (ITA No.839/CHNY/2025, 3 September 2025), which I also read in full, records the CIT(E) there as having said expressly that there is no provision to condone delay in filing Form 10AB for s.80G as there is for s.12AB. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Treating the application as one made under clause (iii), the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application made on 2 October 2024 as an application under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of the first proviso to s.80G(5), to verify all other conditions for approval and to dispose of it on the merits in accordance with law; and it held that for the purpose of the time limit under the fourth proviso to s.80G(5) within which the CIT(E) must dispose of the application, the starting point is the date on which the Tribunal's order is served on the Revenue (paras 10 and 11).
TaxSphere, “Care and Share Charitable Trust v CIT (Exemptions), Chennai”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/care-and-share-80g-clause-iv-b-route-after-missed-deadline/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My Form 10AB for final registration under s.12AB was rejected as time-barred because I missed the 30 June 2024 date in Circular 7/2024. Is anything left to me?
How long does registration under s.12AB now run, is the ten-year period for small trusts real, and is there still any way to save a late Form 10A or Form 10AB?
I did not file the Rule 17A documents in time and the CIT(E) rejected my Form 10AB, cancelled the provisional registration and directed computation of tax under s.115TD. Can a rejection for non-filing carry all that?
The CIT(E) rejected my Form 10AB as premature because the trust had not yet started activities or received donations. Can he do that?
