HEENA SIDHU FOUNDATION FOR SPORTS ,GOREGAON WEST, MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/ Applicant Trust, Heena Sidhu Foundation for Sports, is a charitable trust who had filed an application for regularisation of its provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act.

The CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai observed that certain documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) had not been filed along-with the application filed by the assessee / Applicant Trust. Accordingly, CIT(Exemptions) asked the applicant to furnish the requisite documents. The CIT(Exemptions) held that where a trust has commenced its activities after obtaining provisional registration, the application for regular registration in Form No. 10AB is required to be filed within six months from the commencement of its activities. According to the CIT(Exemptions), since the trust had commenced its activities after obtaining provisional registration on 02.10.2021, the Applicant Trust was required to file its application by April, 2022, whereas the same was filed on 28.07.2025, which was with a delay of about thirty-nine months.

The CIT(Exemptions) noted that applicant submitted that the delay had occurred because the main trustees/directors were outside India for a long period of time and the application could not be filed within the prescribed time. However, CIT(Exemptions) was of the view that the Applicant Trust did not give any reasonable cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application for regular registration under section 12AB of the Act on the ground that Form No. 10AB had been filed beyond the prescribed period.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the CIT(Exemptions) rejecting its application. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has stated that the application filed by Applicant Trust was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed beyond the prescribed time, but CIT(Exemptions) gave no finding with respect to whether the objects of Applicant Trust are charitable in nature or with regards to the genuineness of the activities of the trust. The assessee has further contended that the impugned order was passed without granting adequate opportunity of hearing, thereby resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application filed by the assessee under section 12AB mainly on the ground that Form No. 10AB was filed beyond the time prescribed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. We also notice that only one opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee during the course of proceedings. The assessee has specifically raised a ground before us that Applicant Trust was not afforded an opportunity to explain the delay and furnish all the relevant facts necessary for obtaining approval. We further find that while rejecting the application, the CIT(Exemptions) has not given any finding with respect to the objects of Applicant Trust or whether the activities of Applicant Trust are genuine.

Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Exemptions). Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for de novo adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of Applicant Trust is allowed for statistical purposes.