SHREE GURUDEV DATTA MANDIR TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 22.03.2025of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(E)”], wherein Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust theapplication for regular approval of the assessee’s trust was rejected on the ground that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for delay or to establish that assessee has genuine hardship in filing the appeal within the time, therefore the regularisation for grant of registration was not accepted and the same was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). 2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the orders of authorities below are that the assessee i.e. Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust, was formed as registered Trust on 29th March 1979. It has established a small temple to the worship Shree Gurudev Datta, united form of Hindu trinity. The said temple is being run by the Trust and the financials are being regularly audited by the certified auditors. The provisional registration was granted vide Form 10AC dated 02.03.2023 which was valid up to AY 2025-26. As per section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, the Trust which has been provisionally registered u/s 12AB was required to get regular registration at least six months prior to the expiry of period of the provisional registration or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. The said application was filed by the Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust assessee u/s 12A on 28.09.2024 in Form 10AB which was dismissed by the impugned order. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(E), Assessee preferred the present appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “A. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the CIT erred in rejecting the assessee's application u/s 12AB of the Act on the ground of late application.

B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT failed to appreciate that 1. The assessee is trust established more than 45 years ago and had been continuously doing charitable activity before and after the insertion of Section 12AB and had valid registration 12A registration till the insertion of Section 12AB Throughout this time the assessee has consistently complied with all the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 being a law abiding taxpayer.

ii. The assessee was under impression that the application for final registration has to be made at the end of provisional registration.

iii. The assessee instead of applying by 30.09.2023 i.e. within six months from the start of activities but had applied on 28.09.2024. Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust iv. The assessee submits that owing to the confusion in the interpretation of relevant laws, procedural error committed may please be condoned.

C. The Appellant therefore prays that order rejecting the application u/s 12AB of the Act may please be squashed.

The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, and or amend the above grounds of appeal.”
4. We have heard Ld AR and DR and examined the record. At the outset,
Ld. AR submitted that as per section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, the provisional registration was valid from AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26 as mentioned in serial no. 8 of Form 10AC. It is submitted that the said provisional registration was required to be approved /regularized within
6 months before the expiry of provisional registration. The provisional registration would have expired on 31.03.2026 (AY 2025-26). Ld AR further submitted that the provisional registration was required to be regularized by moving an application on or before 30th September 2025
and the appellant /assessee trust has filed Form 10AB for regularization of provisional registration u/s 12AB of the Act on 28.09.2024, therefore the application was filed within the prescribed time limit i.e. before
31.03.2026 (AY 2025-26). Ld. AR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust wrongly presumed that it is a new Trust and for that reason, Ld. CIT(A) observed that “Thus, as per above provisions, for provisionally registered trust, an application in Form 10AB for regularization should be filed within six months of start of activities i.e. September, 2023. However, the Trust has filed application in Form 10AB for regularization of provisional registration order u/s 12A on 28.09.2024 which is not valid as per the above provisions.” It is further submitted that first proviso of section 12AB required to get regular registration at least six months prior to the expiry of period of the provisional registration or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the application for seeking condonation of delay without appreciating the fact narrated and in the given facts and circumstances, the assessee has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law. Ld. AR requested that the impugned order be set aside and matter be restored to the file to Ld. CIT(E) for giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee for furnishing the required documents, if any, in respect of regularisation of the provisional approval u/s. 12AB of the Act by considering Form 10AB.
Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust
5. On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the arguments of Ld. AR and submitted that the assessee has failed to filed Form 10AB within the time prescribed i.e. six months prior to the expiry of period of the provisional registration, therefore the application for condonation of delay has been rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). Ld. DR further submitted that assessee has failed to file the application as per the extended timeline permitted under CBDT circular no. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024, which allowed Form 10AB only till 30.06.2024. Ld. DR filed written argument and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs.
Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and stated that the procedural compliance, timelines prescribed under tax statutes for availing exemptions or deductions must be strictly construed and non- compliance disentitles the assessee from the exemption, even if the assessee subsequently complies or pleads procedural oversight.
6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and examined the record. With due respect of lordship, the case of PCIT vs.
Wipro Ltd. (supra) relied by Ld. DR is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the said case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered that assessee filed a revised return of income
Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust demanding carry forward of losses by not claiming exemption under section 10B of the Act and for that reason, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the claim of exemption withdrawn in revised return filed after due date and loss claimed to be carried forward was not permissible on account of assessee’sfailure to comply with the twin conditions as provided u/s. 10B(8) of the Act.
7. Since the case in hand pertains to the regularization of provisional registration of a religious trust, therefore the Tribunal requires to take liberal approach because the Trust is running a temple for more than 4-5
decades and should notbe penalized for delay if any in moving the application u/s 12AB of the Act. It is to be noted that CBDT has already extended the period for applying regularization till 30.06.2024. Moreover, in this case, the provisional registration was valid till AY
2025-26 meaning thereby till 31.03.2026 and the application filed on 28.09.2024 is well within 6 months before the expiry of the provisional registration. We have also noticed that after the extension of period by the CBDT till 30.06.2024, the Parliament has amended 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act by adding proviso by Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024
which provides as under:-
Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust
“Where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub clauses (i) to (vi), the Principle Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within the time.”
8. Thus, the above provision has given power to the Principle
Commissioner or Commissioner to condone the delay and also section 119 of the Act empowers the CBDT to issue orders and instructions to subordinate income tax authorities regarding condonation of delay to the tax payers who have missed statutory deadlines due to genuine hardship. Since the Parliament has already granted the power to the PCIT /CIT for condonation of delay, there is no need of approaching the CBDT for condonation of delay u/s 119 of the Act. Moreover considering the submission of the assessee, we are convinced that the assessee has filed the application before the expiry of 6 months of the provisional registration i.e. before AY 2025-26. 9. We have now to consider whether the assessee has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) has Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust recorded the reasons in para no. 4 and 4.1 of its order which are extracted below:-
“4. In response, the applicant made submission vide letter dated 07.03.2025. The applicant's reply is carefully perused. In response to the delay in filing
Form 10AB, the applicant has admitted that the Trust must apply for regular registration at least six months before the expiry of the provisional registration or within six months of commencement of activities, whichever is earlier. The applicant has stated that due to lack of awareness and due to absence of proper professional guidance the applicant did not file the application within the required timeframe. As the trust is very old and was incorporated in 1979 and knows the rules and Regulations of the I.T. Act very well. Therefore, the reason of 'Lack of awareness and absence of proper professional guidance' is not tenable.
4.1 It is appropriate to mention that the due date of filing application on or before 30.06.2024 as per the Circular 7 was an extension provided by the board to all the Trust/Institution to file/re-file their applications under certain conditions. But the trust has not availed the benefit of the same. Further, the applicant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for delay or to establish that the applicant trust had genuine hardship in filing of the application within the due date. In absence of a reasonable cause of delay the request of the applicant for grant of registration in not acceptable.”
10. We have noticed that the reasons given by the assessee before the Ld.
CIT(E) state ue to lack of awareness and due to absence of proper professional guidance, the assessee did not file the application within the required timeframe. Ld. CIT(E) dismissed the said plea of assessee on Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust the ground that the trust is very old and was incorporated in 1979 and knows the rules and Regulations of the Income Tax Act very well, therefore, the reason of 'Lack of awareness and absence of proper professional guidance' is not tenable. We are not convinced by the above reasoning and are of the considered opinion that without appreciating the reasons given by the assessee and rejecting the application by the Ld.
CIT(E) has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Moreover the principle of natural justice has not been followed by Ld. CIT(E) as the material submitted by the assessee was not considered in an objective manner. In the given facts and circumstances, a more holistic approach was required to be adopted by the Ld. CIT(E). Our view is fortified by the recent pronouncement of Ld. Coordinate Bench on identical issue in ITA No.
4451/Mum/2025 order dated 30.09.2025. Para 7.3 onward is relevant and extracted below:-
“7.3 Coming to the main question/issue posed “as to whether the Assessee is entitled to get the deduction claimed on the basis of Form10-B filed belatedly”, we observe that various High Courts including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid case, also dealt with identical issue, wherein there was a delay in filing of Form 10B and, therefore, the claim of the Assessee u/sec. 11 of the Act was denied. The Hon'ble High
Court by analyzing various judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts ultimately held
“that filing of audit report is held to be substantive requirement but not the mode and stage of filing, which is procedural. Once the audit report in Form 10B is filed to be Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust available with the Assessing Officer, before assessment proceedings take-place, the requirement of law is satisfied”.
8. We further observe that in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO
(Exemption) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj.) the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also dealt with the identical issue qua filing of Form 10B belatedly, however, in that case the Assessee approached the Appropriate Authority u/s 119(2b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by considering the issue, held as under:
"That in the cases of delay in filing form 10B the approach of the authorities ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious. Further, availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. This Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied
Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj.) has also held that provision regarding furnishing of audit report with the return has to be treated as a procedural proviso. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice.
Benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same and it is permissible for the Assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income Tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause".
9. We further observe that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT
(Exemption) Vs. LaxminarayandevShikshan Seva Kendra (2024) 167 taxmann.com
548 (Guj.) (10.09.2024) has also dealt with the issue "wherein the Form 10B was filed during the course of appellate proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the benefit of section 11 of the Act to the Assessee" and the Tribunal upheld the said decision of the Ld. Commissioner.
The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by taking cognizance of the fact and the decision in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust case (supra) approved the decision of the Tribunal in following the judgment in the case of Social Securities Scheme of GICEA
Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust
Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad dated 21.12.2022 in Special Civil Application No.17612 of 2022}, wherein it has been held as under:
"That though filing of audit report is mandatory in nature and substantial compliance is required to be made, however, furnishing of audit report along with return filed, is to be treated as a procedural requirement".
10. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 446 ITR (1)(SC), which has been relied on by the then Ld. Commissioner, in approving the decision of the CPC, while rejecting the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s 11 of the Act.
11. We further observe that the Hon'ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Mirae
Audit Foundation Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai &Ors. has also taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust case (supra) and ultimately condoned the delay of 246
days in filing of Form 10B by holding as under: "That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and which is substantial amount".
12. Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, the question posed is answered in "affirmative" and consequently, we direct the AO to consider Form no.10B filed by the Assessee, as valid and verify the facts and determine the tax liability qua deduction/exemption claimed by the Assessee u/sec. 11 of the Act as per law.”
11. For the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has sufficient cause for condonation of delay on merit in view of contents of the application seeking regularisation of the provisional registration. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, matter is restored to the file of Ld.
Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust
CIT(E) for considering the application on merit after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the matter de novo.
The appellant/assessee shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(E) within 60 days of this order and furnish the necessary documents.
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee isallowed in above terms for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2025. (PADMAVATHY S)
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Mumbai / Dated 13.10.2025
Dhananjay, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

(Asstt.