SMT. NARBADADEVI JAIKISHAN DAMANIF OUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIT) EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER RATNA DASGPUTA, AM The captioned appeal by the assessee arises out of rejection by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) – hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(E) - of assessee’s application in Form 10AB on 30/09/2025 u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act

Narbadadevi Jaikishan Damani Foundation 2 ITA No. 5152/MUM/2026

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking regularization of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that pursuant to verification of the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB, the Ld. CIT(E) found that the documents submitted were not complete, and issued notice to the assessee for filing full set of documents/information required under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules. From the details thereafter furnished and from data available on ITBA/CPC portal, the Ld. CIT(E) noticed that the assessee had obtained provisional registration (vide order dated 30/11/2022 in form 10AC) having validity from AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26. Citing the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, which requires a trust to apply for regularization of provisional registration at least six months prior to expiry of the period of provisional registration or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier, the Ld. CIT(E) observed that the assessee had made a delay of more than 27 months in filing the present application in Form 10AB. The basis of his calculation was that since the trust had been carrying out activities after obtaining provisional registration on 30/11/2022, it should have applied for regularization of provisional registration latest by the end May, 2023. However, the present application in Form 10AB was filed only on 30/09/2025.

Narbadadevi Jaikishan Damani Foundation 3 ITA No. 5152/MUM/2026

2.1 The Ld. CIT(E) has recorded that the trust has not submitted any reason or clarification for delay in filing Form10AB. He concluded that this reflects “a casual and indifferent approach towards its statutory obligations under the Income tax Act,” since the assessee had not been able to establish that it was faced with any genuine hardship which prevented it from filing the application within time. Referring to CBDT’s Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25/04/2024 (which was the latest in the series of CBDT Circulars providing for general condonation of delay), the Ld. CIT(E) pointed out that the assessee had failed to avail benefit of the said relaxation within the stipulated period. It is his view that the obligation to furnish Form 10AB within the prescribed due date is a statutory and substantive requirement and not a mere procedural formality. He contended that when the assessee seeks to avail of a benefit under section 12A of the Act, being a beneficial provision, strict compliance with the prescribed conditions is necessary. 2.2 In support of the aforesaid view that compliance with the given timeline is mandatory, the Ld. CIT(E) cited the following judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court;- i) PCIT versus Wipro Limited (2022)-140 taxmann. com 223 (SC); and

Narbadadevi Jaikishan Damani Foundation 4 ITA No. 5152/MUM/2026

ii)Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) - 9 SCC 1. He rejected the impugned application of the assessee on the ground of late filing of Form 10 AB. 2.3 It is against this rejection by the Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal, on the following grounds of appeal;- i. The learned CIT (E) erred in rejecting the application for registration of the appellant trust under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii. The learned CIT (E) erred in not condoning the delay in applying for regularization of the provisional registration without considering that the same was mere technical omissions and not considering the bonafide of the appellant. iii. The learned CIT (E) failed to examine the objects and genuineness of the activities of the appellant which is the primary requirement of under section 12AB. iv. The CIT (E) erred in passing the rejecting the application for registration without providing any opportunity of being heard against the rejection and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. v. The appellant craves to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute OR amend the above at any time before OR at the time of hearing the appeal so as to enable the Honourable Income Tax Tribunal to decide this appeal according to the law.

Narbadadevi Jaikishan Damani Foundation 5 ITA No. 5152/MUM/2026

case. The same was rejected since it was felt that a correct decision could be arrived at on the basis of material available before us. 4. We have heard the Ld. CIT DR and perused the material on record. It is our considered view that the two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by Revenue are distinguishable from the facts of the given case and do not lay down that the time lines provided in Section 12A are mandatory. In PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. the Hon’ble Court held that for claiming benefit of section 10B of the Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the Assessing Officer and, that too, before the due date for furnishing original return of income, are mandatorily to be complied. There is no discussion in that order on section 12A or the timelines provided therein. In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar, on the other hand, the Constitution Bench was set up to examine what is the interpretative role to be applied while interpreting a tax exemption provision/notification when there is an ambiguity as to its applicability w.r.t. entitlement of the assessee or the rate of tax to be applied. In our case, however, we are not interpreting any tax exemption provision with an ambiguity.

Narbadadevi Jaikishan Damani Foundation 6 ITA No. 5152/MUM/2026

4.1 Further, in Proviso below section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, it is stated that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time. 4.2 Another point to note is that the Ld. CIT(E), while rejecting the assessee’s application in Form 10AB, has observed as follows: “Accordingly, the explanation furnished is found to be unsatisfactory and insufficient for the purposes of condonation under the law”. But nowhere has he mentioned what explanation was actually given by the assessee. 5. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) to consider the circumstances of delay by the assessee in filing application in Form 10AB and examine afresh other necessary requirements before granting or rejecting the application for regularization of provisional registration. Needless to state, the assessee must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. With this, all the grounds raised by the assessee stand disposed of.

Narbadadevi Jaikishan Damani Foundation 7 ITA No. 5152/MUM/2026

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (RATNA DASGPUTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/08/2026 Z.U., P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai