MAALAGA SOCIAL FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: D BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 5088/MUM/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2026-27) MAALAGA SOCIAL FOUNDATION CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI Flat No. 1202, 12th Floor T7, Room No.601, 6th Floor, Emerald Isle, Sakivihar Road, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE L&Amp;T Gate 5, Powai Sakinaka, Building, Pedder Road, Dr Vs. Mumbai-400072, Maharashtra Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill Mumbai-400026, Maharashtra अपीलाथ�Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AANCM6509L

अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Anil Sathe ��थ��ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Sandeep Lakra CIT DR. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 11-Aug-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 14-Aug-2026 आदेश / ORDER

PERSHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The instant appeal of the assessee filed against of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [for brevity “Ld. CIT(E)], order passed under Section 12A of the Act, date of order 22.03.2026.

“11. Coming to the issue in present case, we find that the explanation offered by the assessee regarding delay in filing of Form 10AB are justifiable and there is no allegation that there was any deliberate attempt by the assessee-trust to delay the filing of Form 10AB. It is also undisputed that the assessee-trust possesses provisional registration under section 12AB, thus the bonafide of the assessee-trust could not be doubted. The Id. CIT(E) have the authority vested with him to grant registration by exercising the discretion judiciously and to advance the cause of justice by condoning the delay and examining the application on merits. Since there was no observation by the ld. CIT(E) giving any adverse inference qua the objects and activities of the assessee-trust, the rejection of assessee's applications, only on the solitary ground of delay in filing of appeal, without any finding that delay was deliberately attempted by the assessee would be extraneous and against the principle of natural justice. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the impugned rejection orders denying the registration under section 12AB and 80G are unsustainable, we, thus, direct to condone the delay in filing of Form 10AB and re-consider the application of the assessee-trust in Form 10AB for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits. The appeal of assessee therefore restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) to decide the application of assessee in Form 10AB afresh on merits and also reconsider the application for approval under section 80G, which is rejected under usual corollary, merely as a consequence to the rejection of registration under section 12AB. The assessee may be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being hear during the set-aside proceedings.” 4. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favor of the orders of Ld. CIT(E). 5. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available interest the records. We find that the assessee had applied for regularization of registration u/sec. 12A in From No.10AB admittedly, the assessee had filed to file the application within stipulated time & filed with delay for 21 months. The Ld. CIT(E) issued the show cause calling upon the assessee to furnish certain documents for regularization of registration during the proceeding. But the assessee had submitted all the relevant documents. On perusal of the order, we find that the Ld. CIT(E) had not issued any show-cause notice requiring the assessee to explain the delay in filing the application. Consequently, the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to explain the reasons for such delay before the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. AR, therefore, contended that the application was rejected on the ground of delay without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to the belated filing. We respectfully follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Saarth Pratishthan (supra), wherein the Coordinate Bench had restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) with appropriate directions concerning condonation of delay and consideration of the application in accordance with law. Following the aforesaid decision, we restore the present matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee shall be at liberty to file an appropriate petition seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by a notarised affidavit and all other relevant documentary evidence explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the application. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to consider the petition for condonation of delay in lenient approach and the supporting material furnished by the assessee and, upon being satisfied as to the sufficiency of the cause shown, condone the delay in accordance with law. Thereafter, the application shall be considered on its merits in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Act. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set-aside proceedings. The assessee is also directed to remain diligent and extend necessary cooperation by furnishing the requisite documents and information for expeditious disposal of the application. We have not expressed any view on the merits of the application. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.5088/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of August 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 14/08/2026 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI