LANCER FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Lancer Foundation, Unit No. H02-02,03,04, Mayuresh Chambers, PS, P-No. 60, Sector 11, Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614. Vs. CIT (E), Room No. 601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill, MTNL Te Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. PAN NO. AAFCL 0878 F Appellant Respondent
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “the ld.
CIT(E)”], whereby the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee seeking regularization of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).
The grounds rai 1. The lea Mumba months July 20 No. _ p 2. The lea Mumba in sub was lo half w find a 3. The lea Mumba Memor Income clause of the c 4. Withou Commi erred intentio 3(6) by which 3. Briefly stated, f application in Form N u/s 12AB of the Ac having obtained pro apply for regularisati assessee, however, fi there was a delay in f 3.1 The ld. CIT(E) r on the ground of dela not explained by suf ised by the assessee are reprodu arned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exem ai erred in contending that there is a dela s as against the factual delay of 5 mont 024 to 19th November 2024) by virtu of C provided by the Central Board of Direct Ta arned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exem ai erred in not accepting the fact that the mission was on account of the consulta ooking after the compliance left the assig ay through and it took time for the appe new consultant to compile with the provis arned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exem ai erred by objecting to a clause 3(6) randum of Association violating section 1 e Tax Act without considering the fact 4 of the Memorandum of Association the company extended to the whole of India. ut prejudice to ground no 3, the l issioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) M in not appreciating the fact tha on/desire of the appellant to delete cla y amending the Memorandum of Associa time is required for uploading. facts of the case are that the a No. 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) seek ct. According to the ld. CIT(E ovisional registration, was und ion in Form 10AB latest by Ma iled the application only on 19 filing the relevant application. rejected the application on two ay which, according to him, was fficient cause; and second, on t Lancer Foundation 2 uced as under: mptions) ay of 19 ths (1st Circular axes. mptions) e delay ant who ignment ellant to sions. mptions) in the 1 of the that in objects learned Mumbai at the ause no ation for assessee filed an king registration E), the assessee er obligation to arch, 2023. The .11.2024. Thus, o grounds—first, s 19 months and the ground that clause 3(6) of the as violation of section amendment was fu willingness to ame reproduced as under “4.1 The cont delay of 19 m the applicatio are supposed settled in pri defence or va It is appropria on or before 3 provided by th applications failed to avai been able to s that the app application w condonation i 4.2 Regarding Act applicant of provisions memorandum has neither su amendment o applied for am 5. Since Reg granted in ter after being sa genuineness the time bei achieving its o undersigned i seeking regist 6. Thus, the in Form 10AB of late filing o ssessee’s Memorandum of Ass 11 of the Act and no resolut urnished despite the assessee end. The relevant finding of r: tention of the applicant is not acceptable months and the applicant trust had ampl n within the permissible timelimit. The ap d to comply with the compliances of law inciple that ignorance of law cannot be lid excuse. ate to mention that the due date of filing 30.06.2024 as per the said circular was he board to all the Trust/Institution to file under certain conditions. However, th il the benefit of the same. As the applic show any reasonable cause for delay or plicant trust had genuine hardship in f within the due date the request of the a is not tenable. g the issue of violation of section 11 of th has itself accepted that the said clause i of section 11 and also stated it will m by deleting the said clause. However, t ubmitted/presented resolution passed by of memorandum nor submitted any proof mendment in MOA before the MCA. gistration/approval under section 12A rms of the provisions of section 12AB (1) atisfied about the objects of the trust or in of activities, and the compliance of any o ing in force as are material for the objects. In the view of above mentioned v is left with no other option but to reject th tration under section 12AB of the Act. application for regularization of provisio B filed by the assessee is not allowable o of application and violation of provisions Lancer Foundation 3 sociation was in tion or proof of e conceding its f ld CIT(E) is e as there is le time to file pplicant trust w. It is well e pleaded as g application an extension e/re-file their he applicant cant has not r to establish filing of the applicant for he Income tax is in violation l amend the the applicant y trust for the of that it has AB is to be (b) of the Act nstitution, the other law for purposes of iolations, the he application nal approval n the ground of section 11
of the Act. In stands reject
4. The learned cou the delay was bona the control of the as was further submitt remedy by filing a p that the matter be re merits once such con
4.1 The learned De submitted that the C
30.06.2024, and sinc the ld. CIT(E) was ju that unless condona entertained.
5. We have consid the material on reco admittedly filed its provided by the CBDT authority for condona to the Principal Co proviso introduced
Finance(No.2) Act, 20
n conclusion, this application for grant ted.”
unsel for the assessee submitted fide and occasioned by circum sessee, and therefore deserved ted that the assessee is prepa roper petition before the ld CIT emitted to the ld. CIT(E) to be de ndonation is granted.
partmental Representative, on CBDT had specifically extended ce the assessee filed the applica ustified in rejecting the same. It ation is granted, the applicatio dered rival submissions and ca ord. The fact remains that th application beyond the perio
T. But the Hon’ble parliament h ation for delay in filing applicati ommissioner or Commissioner into Act below section 12A(1)(a 024 w.e.f. 1/10/2024 is reprodu
Lancer Foundation
4
of approval d before us that mstances beyond condonation. It ared to avail its T(E) and prayed ecided afresh on the other hand, d the time up to ation thereafter, t was contended on could not be arefully perused he assessee has od of extension has provided the ion beyond time r. The relevant ac)(B) by way of uced as under:
“ Provided that w allowed in sub-c
Commissioner m cause for delay in such application s
5.1 Since the asses an application befor ends of substantial ju the file of the ld. CIT condonation of delay shall adjudicate the issue of amendment accordance with law.
5.2 In view of the fo ld. CIT(E) is set asid fresh adjudication in the assessee are acco
6. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M where the application is filed b clause (i) to (vi), the Principal C may, if he considers that there n filing the application, condone shall be deemed to have been fil see has expressed its willingnes e the ld CIT(E) , in our consi ustice would be met if the matt
T(E), with a direction to examine y and if delay is condoned, then e application afresh on merits of the Memorandum of Associa oregoing discussion, the impugn de and the matter is remanded accordance with law. The grou ordingly allowed for statistical pu the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 30/0
d/-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA
Lancer Foundation
5
beyond the time
Commissioner or is a reasonable such delay and led within time.”
ss to move such idered view, the ter is restored to e the petition of n, the ld. CIT(E) s, including the ation, strictly in ned order of the d to his file for nds of appeal of urposes.
is allowed for 09/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
Mumbai;
Dated: 30/09/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Lancer Foundation
6
R, gistrar) umbai