Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Nashabandi Mandal Maharashtra State Charitable Institution, applied for registrations under Section 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The initial application for Section 12A was rejected due to an inadvertent error in selecting the section, despite being filed within the extended due date. A subsequent fresh application, filed with a slight delay along with a condonation request, was also rejected by the Ld. Commissioner, citing unsatisfactory reasons for the delay and lack of compliance.
Held
The Tribunal found the delay in filing the fresh application to be meager, reasonable, and not intentional, and therefore condoned it. It remanded both appeals (for registration under Section 12A and Section 80G) back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits, instructing to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Denial of registration under Section 12A and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act due to an initial technical error and a subsequent minor delay in filing a fresh application.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G, 80, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 24.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
These cases are inter-connected, as the same pertains to the denial of registrations u/s 12A and 80G of the Act and therefore for sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this Composite order. we observe that the Assessee had sought for registration u/s 12A of the Act by filing the online application dated 27.11.2024 in form No. 10AB, which was taken into consideration by the Ld. Commissioner by issuing various show cause notices, including dated 05.06.2025, in response to which the assessee has filed its submissions vide letter dated 10.06.2025, wherein the Assessee replied the query sought for by the Ld. Commissioner qua delay in filing of application in Form- 10AB, by submitting that since the trust had commenced its activities from A.Y. 2022-23 onwards, whereas the due date for filing form No. 10AB was 30.09.2022, which was further extended upto 30.06.2024 and the Assessee therefore has filed Form No. 10 AB on 07.05.2024, within the revised due date of 30.06.2024. However, the same was rejected due to an inadvertent error in selecting section, in which the registration was sought for in Form No. 10AB, vide order dated 16.10.2024. On receipt of the rejection order 16.10.2024, the Assessee had once again applied for final registration in form No. 10AB but with a slight delay accompanying the application for condonation of delay.
Though, the Ld. Commissioner considered the reply of the Assessee, however not being satisfied with reasons of delay rejected said application filed by the Assessee, mainly by holding as under: “That the reasons for delay are neither satisfactory nor conclusive. Further the Assessee has not been able to show any reasonable cause for delay or to establish that the assessee trust had genuine hardship in filing of the application
within the due date. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is not accepted. In absence of necessary compliance made by the applicant against the violation raised as above, he is unable to arrive on the satisfactory conclusion or parameters. Thus, he is having left with no other option, rejecting the application seeking registration u/s 12 AB of the Act by the Assessee”.
The Assessee therefore being aggrieved has preferred instant appeal.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It appears from the impugned order that earlier application though was filed by the assessee 03.06.2024, within the due date as extended by CBDT, however the said application was rejected vide order dated 16.10.2024due the inadvertent error, in selecting the section, in which registration was sought for. And on receipt of the said order dated 16.10.2024, the Assessee again filed fresh application on dated 27.11.2024 along with application for condonation of delay, which has been rejected by the Ld. Commissioner, not only in the limitation and/or delay of meager days but in fact also on the ground that in the absence of necessary compliance made against the violation raised as above, the Ld. Commissioner was unable to arrive on the satisfactory conclusion on parameter.
We by giving thoughtful consideration to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case again, observe that the delay, if any occurred in filing on fresh application on dated 27.11.2024, after receipt of order dated 16.10.2024 passed by Ld. commissioner in Form 10AB, appears to be meager, but still the duration of delay is not clear from the impugned order. The delay even otherwise appears to be reasonable and plausible, as the same was neither inordinate nor intentional. Thus, considering the peculiar fact and circumstance in totality, specific to the effects that the Assessee has provisional registration granted vide order dated 15.11.2021 valid from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2024-25 and initially filed the original application within the due date, as extended by the CBDT, but somehow the same was rejected on technicalities qua mentioning the wrong provisions of the Act and thus for just and proper decision of case, fair play and substantial justice, this court is inclined to condone the delay in filing a fresh application which has been rejected by the Ld. Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 24.06.2025 and to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee/applicant.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, in the above terms.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant and essential documents for just and appropriate decision of the case. We clarify that in the case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for nay leniency. stands allowed. which pertains to registration sought for u/s 80 of the Act, which is consequential to the registration u/s 12A of the Act and thus in view of our judgment in wherein the registration u/s 12A of the Act is involved, this case also remanded back to file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh in same terms, as mentioned above.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2025.