CHENNAI UNIFIED METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is Metropolitan Trust shortly known as ‘CUMTA’ is a Local Authority constituted under the provisions of Chennai Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority Act, 2010 (Tamilnadu Act 44 of 2010). The appellant filed an application in Form No.10AB seeking grant of Registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.09.2025. It is formed with the following objects : “Appellant is functioning as the institutional coordination mechanism to improve urban mobility in the city of Chennai by conducting various studies, implementation of projects, etc by coordinating with various State and Central Government Departments and Agencies, namely Traffic Police Department, Police Department CMDA, Urban Planning Department, Southern Railways, MRTS, CMRL, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Road Transport Authorities, Chennai Corporation, etc. Appellant’s source of funds is by means of grants from the Government of Tamil Nadu. Its governing body is headed by Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamilnadu.”

On receipt of the said application, the Learned CIT(E) issued a show cause notice on 12.02.2026 to the appellant. In response to show cause notice, the appellant-trust responded on 17.02.2026 by filing the requisite details. On due consideration of the information filed, the Learned CIT(Exemption) granted registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act to the appellant on 23.03.2026 for a period of 5 years commencing from Assessment Year 2027-28 to 2031-32 instead of “from Assessment Year 2026-27 to Assessment Year 2030-31” without any adverse finding by the Learned CIT(E).

Being aggrieved by the above order, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal. At the outset, there is a delay of 15 days in presenting the appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant filed petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that delay had occurred on the ground that the appellant considered the granting of registration w.e.f AY 2027-28 instead of AY 2026-27 as a mistake apparent from records and filed a rectification petition with Office of CIT(Exemption), on 07.04.2026 and pursuing the same. Subsequently, appellant came to understand that rectification is not possible/enabled in the ITBA due to technical reasons for the reason of transition from Income Tax Act 1961 Act to Income Tax Act 2025, as a result, appellant was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time. Thus, he prayed for the condonation of delay.

We have perused the Affidavit and the averments made in the Affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by Learned CIT-DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the delay had occurred in filing the appeal on account of Bonafide reasons and the explanation cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, hence, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The Learned Counsel submits that the Leaned CIT(E) erred in not granting registration from AY.2026-27 to 2030-31 instead of AY from 2027-28 to 2031-32, therefore, he prayed that Learned CIT(Exemptions) be directed to amend the impugned order accordingly.

On the other hand, the Learned CIT-DR has no serious objection for remand the matter to the file of Learned CIT(E) for amendment of the certificate issued by Learned CIT(Exemptions).

We heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Learned CIT(E), Chennai was justified in granting of registration u/s.12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from AY. 2027-28 to 2031-32 instead of AY.2026-27 to 2030-31. We find from the record that the appellant filed application seeking renewal of registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act on 30.09.2025 w.e.f 01.04.2026 and the provisional registration granted earlier was expiring on 31.03.2026. The Learned CIT(E) had not recorded any adverse finding disentitling the appellant for grant of registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2026, nor the Learned CIT(Exemptions) had expressedly denied the Registration w.e.f 01.04.2026. It appears that the Learned CIT(E) granted registration w.e.f 01.04.2027 inadvertently. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires a remand to file of Learned CIT(E) for amendment of the certificate of registration in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th September, 2026. (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 11th Sep, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.09.17 18:12:22 +05'30'