LADALI GOSHALA SEVA SANSTHA,DAUND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH “A” BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No. 641/PUN/2026 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) Ladali Goshala Seva CIT (Exemption) Sanstha, 3rd floor, PMT building, Shankar Shri Bhimai Nagar, C/S No. Seth Road, 24/1/B, New Pune-411037, Vs. 232/1/Pansare Wasti, Maharashtra. Daund, Pune-413801 Maharashtra. PAN: AABTL9588K (अपीलार्थीAppellant) (प्रत्यर्थी Respondent)

For Assessee : Ms.Sakina Kachwala.AR For Revenue : Shri.Mithun Shete.CIT DR Date of Hearing : 02.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT (Exemption) Pune passed u/sec 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT (Exemption) rejecting approval u/sec 80G of the Income Tax Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed the affidavit of the assessee for Ladali Goshala Seva Sanstha condonation of delay. On consideration of facts and information mentioned in the affidavit, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld. DR. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is registered trust and undertaking the charitable activities. The assessee was granted provisional registration u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act in form no.10AC. Subsequently, as per the amended provisions of Section 80G of the Act, The assessee for the purpose of permanent registration has uploaded e-application in Form.No.10AB on 17.01.2025.Whereas the office of the CIT (Exemption) has issued notice for the clarifications and information and the assessee has duly complied with the details. Whereas the CIT (Exemption) find that the assessee has provisionally got the approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act valid up to 31.03.2024 and the assessee has to file the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act at least six months prior to expiry of period of provisional approval or within six months from date of commencement of activities whichever is earlier. Whereas the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act was required to be filed before 30.09.2023 but the assessee has filed the present application on 17.01.2025 after the expiry of period as per the provisions u/sec80G(5)(iii) of the Act and the CIT(E) has rejected the application vide order dated 29.08.2025. Aggrieved by the CIT (Exemption) order, the assessee has filed the appeal before Hon’ble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing Ld.AR submitted that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee’s applicationU/sec 80G of the Act ignoring the submissions made along with the application in Form.No.10AB and also additional submissions

Ladali Goshala Seva Sanstha and information filed in compliance to the notices issued. The Learned AR submitted that the nature of activities are charitable in nature and the CIT (Exemption) has rejected the application due to delay in filling the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act in a mechanical manner without examining the genuineness of activities and substantive merits. The Ld.AR contentions are that the delay was procedural and not a wanton Act. Further the learned AR emphasized that assessee has a good case on merits and substantiated with paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for an opportunity before the lower authorities to substantiate the claim. Per Contra Ld DR relied on the order of the CIT (Exemption). 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed application before the CIT (Exemption) for approval under section 80G of the act. Whereas the assessee in the course of hearing has filed details in compliance to the notices issued by the CIT (Exemption).Whereas the CIT (Exemption) observed that the assessee has provisionally got the approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act valid up to31.03.2024 and the assessee has to file the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act at least six months prior to expiry of period of provisional approval or within six months from date of commencement of activities whichever is earlier. Whereas the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act was required to be filed before 30.09.2023 but the assessee has filed the present application on 17.01.2025 after the expiry of period as per the provisions u/sec80G(5)(iii) of the Act and has rejected the application. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee was granted registration u/sec12A of the Act on 20.08.2025 and placed the copy of Ladali Goshala Seva Sanstha order on record. Further the delay was not deliberate and not a wanton Act .Whereas The Honble Income Tax tribunal Mumbai Benches in ITA.No. 6957/PUN/2025 for the A.Y. 2025-26 of Rashtra Tej Manch Vs. CIT(Exemption) order dated 11.03.2026 has dealt at Para 5 to 8 of the order on the subject matter of condonation of delay in filling the application for regular approval under section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act read as under: 5.“We have heard the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessee is an old entity having been registered with the Exemption Department of the Revenue in the year 1996, and since then was enjoying the registration u/s 80G of the Act. Further, the Assessee is having valid registration u/s 12A of the Act, which is still in existence. We further observe that the identical situation as involved in this case has also been dealt with by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mohanji Bharat Welfare Foundation Vs. CIT(Exemptions) in [ITA No.2617/M/2025 decided on 14.10.2025], wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only considered the identical facts and circumstances but also various judgments concerning the issue and ultimately condoned the delay in filing of regular registration application u/s 80G of the Act, by observing and holding as under:- “13. Further with regard to whether the Tribunal can condone the delay in filing the Form 10AB u/s 80G of the Act, the Ld. Coordinate Bench of ITAT Surat in SwachVapi Mission Trust (supra) has held that the Tribunal is a final fact finding authority, and based on the assessee facts and undue hardship created by the clause (iii) of 3rd proviso of section 80(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal may condone the delay in filing the Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) in the interest of justice. In that regard the Coordinate Bench of Surat relied the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT(Exemption) vs. VishwaJagriti Mission [2013]

taxmann.com

(Delhi)/[2013] 213 Taxman 65 (Delhi), wherein it was held in para 18 that the question 'whether there was sufficient cause for the delay is also a question of fact. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UdhaydasKewalram v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performs a judicial function under the Ladali Goshala Seva Sanstha Indian Income-tax Act and it is vested with authority to determine finally all questions of fact. It is further held that the Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on the merits. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in justice that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. The acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. It was further held that the court cannot set aside the Tribunal's finding of fact if there is some evidence to support that finding even though the court itself might have come to a different conclusion upon the evidence. 14. It is to be noticed that the condonation of delay is sought by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E) alleging those facts, which in the facts and circumstances, makes out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Since the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority, hence this question whether the assessee is entitled for condonation of delay in filing the Form 10AB, u/s 80G(5) of the Act and its determination is within the domain and power of the Tribunal because the Tribunal may pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit(reference section 254(1) of the Act). The reliance placed by Ld. DR on the case of Sila for Change Foundation vs. CIT(E), ITA No. 4274 & 4275/Mum/2024 order dated 20.12.2024 is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand because in the said case, it was held that mere existence of objet clauses permitting activities outside India is sufficient ground to deny or cancel registration u/s 12AB and consequently u/s 80G of the Act, even if no such activity has yet been undertaken. The facts of the said case are also different from the facts of the present case because in the said case the assessee has failed to modify the object clause despite multiple opportunities given, thereby justifying the cancellation, but in the case in hand, the assessee has already taken required steps to modify the object clause by removal of provision of spending money outside India and we have no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed in that regard which is placed at page no. 335 to 430 of the Paper Book 2. 15. The copy of the proposed amendment to the MOA of the Appellant, along with a copy of the acknowledgement for Form GNL-1 filed by the Appellant with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has been placed at page no. 283 to 294 of the paper book 1 and copy of Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Appellant clarifying that the clause in the MoA granting power to apply funds outside India is a drafting error and is proposed to be rectified is placed at page no. 295 of the paper book 1. ITA.No. 641/PUN/2026 Ladali Goshala Seva Sanstha 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the case relied by Ld. DR is of no help and does agitate against the claim of the assessee for regularization of provisional registration of the assessee u/s 12AB of the Act. 17. As has already been discussed since the provisional registration granted vide Form 10AC was valid from 09.02.2022 to AY 2024-25 and since the trust is old entity carrying out its charitable activities much before granting of provisional approval, therefore assessee is entitled to get regular registration u/s 12AB of the Act, by moving an application 6 months before the expiry of provisional approval i.e. 6 months prior to 31 March 2025 and the said date would be 30th September 2024. The application was filed on 3rd August 2024, therefore it is well within the time limit. However in the affidavit filed by the Director of the assessee company, it is categorically admitted that the provisional registration as per Form 10AC u/s 12AB of the Act was lapsed on 31 March 2024, though it seems to be misinterpretation of the provisional registration granted as per Form 10AC of the Act. However, it is to be considered that the provisional registration is lapsed on 31.03.2024 and the CBDT extended the registration till 30th June 2024; as discussed by us, the reasons for condonation of delay as elaborated in the affidavit of the director of the assessee company constitute sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. In these facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(E) ought to have considered the request for condonation of delay. Moreover the Parliament has amended section 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:- "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.” 18. Thus, the above provision has given power to the Principle Commissioner or Commissioner to condone the delay in addition to section 119 of the Act which 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 assessee has already taken necessary steps for carrying out amendments in the objectives of the assessee to bring the parameters of section 11 and 12 of the Act by removing the provision of spending charitable amount outside India or carrying out activity outside India, therefore a holistic approach was required to be adopted by Ld. CIT(E) by considering those amendments in the objective clause which will be effective after approval of the