GRAMIN MAHILA JAN JAGRITI SAMITI,PITHORAGARH vs. EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.301 & 300/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2025-26) Gramin Mahila Jan Jagriti Exemption Ward, Samiti, Dehradun. Village Jakhani Post Bin, Vs. Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand-262501. PAN-AAHAG9073H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.298 & 299/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2025-26) Jan Shikshya Samiti Gopeshwar, Exemption Ward, Near Police Line Gopeshwar, Dehradun. Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246401. Vs. PAN-AAAAJ6817H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Siddharth Kaushik (Adv.) Department by Shri Deepak Choudhary, JCIT ITA Nos.295 & 276/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2025-26) Anti Pollution Army Charitable, Exemption Ward, Lane No.2, Jawalpa Enclave, Dehradun. I.I.P. S.O, Mohkam Pur Khurd, Vs. Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248005. PAN-AAITA8054E (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 ITA Nos.301,300,298,299 295,276,296 /DDN/2026

ITA No. 296/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2025-26) Samarth India Charitable Trust, Exemption Ward, 227, Loharwala Sirmour Marg, Dehradun. Dehradun, Uttarakhand -248001. Vs. PAN-ABATS2493J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Siddharth Kaushik (Adv.) Department by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 21/07/2026 O R D ER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: 1. These are bunch of seven appeals which have similar set of facts and, therefore, all the seven appeals are disposed of through a single order.

(i) ITA No.301/Del/2026. This appeal arises from the order dated 23.03.2026 passed u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as “the Act”), by CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow. In this case, the application was rejected on account of the fact that the application for registration was filed on 30.09.2025 and not on or before 30.09.2024. The application has been rejected on account of delay in filing of Form 10AB.

(ii) ITA No.300/Del/2026. This appeal arises from the order dated 23.03.2026 passed u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, by CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow. In this case, the application in Form 10AB was apparently required

3 ITA Nos.301,300,298,299 295,276,296 /DDN/2026

to be filed on or before 30.09.2024 but was filed on 30.09.2025 and, therefore, it was rejected on account of delay. (iii) ITA No.295/Del/2026. This appeal arises from the order dated 23.03.2026 passed u/s 80G of the Act, by CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow. In this case, the application in Form 10AB was rejected on account of delay, since the application was filed on 29.09.2025 instead of on or before 30.09.2024.

iv) ITA No.276/Del/2026. This appeal arises from the order dated 23.03.2026 through which an application in Form 10AB was apparently required to be filed on or before 30.09.2024 but was filed on 29.02.2025. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(E), Lucknow rejected this application on account of delayed filing of Form 10AB, before the Ld. CIT(E). (v) ITA No.298/Del/2026. This appeal arises from the order dated 24.03.2026 passed u/s 80G(5) of the Act, by CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow. Through this order, the Form 10AB filed on 30.09.2025 was rejected on the ground that it was required to be filed on or before 30.09.2024. (vi) ITA No.299/Del/2026. This appeal arises from the order dated 24.03.2026 passed u/s 12AB(i)(b)(B) of the Act, by CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow. In this case, the application for approval has been filed on 30.09.2025 whereas it was supposed to be filed on or before 30.09.2024. The said application in Form 10AB was rejected on account of delayed filing of Form 10AB before the Ld. CIT(E). (vii) ITA No.296/Del/2026. This appeal arises from the order dated 18.03.2026 passed u/s 80G(5) of the Act. In this case, the application has been

4 ITA Nos.301,300,298,299 295,276,296 /DDN/2026

rejected on the ground that application in Form 10AB was filed on 30.09.2025 instead of having been filed on or before 30.09.2024.

2.1 In these appeals, the common thread that runs through the impugned orders is that Form 10AB was filed belatedly in all the seven cases. The Ld. CIT(E), Lucknow has mentioned in the impugned orders that the assessees’ applications were rejected since they failed to file Form 10AB in all the cases on or before 30.09.2025.

2.2 The assessees being aggrieved with these orders has approached the ITAT with grounds which are more or less identical and challenge the impugned orders on grounds of denial of opportunity of being heard; and rejection of application in Form 10AB on account of delay, which has been claimed to be a technical issue which should not come in the way of a substantial decision on merit. For the sake of brevity, the grounds of appeal in all these seven cases are not reproduced but it deserves to be mentioned that the assessees’ grievance revolves around the issue of denial of opportunity of being heard and rejection of application in Form 10AB on the grounds of delay.

5 ITA Nos.301,300,298,299 295,276,296 /DDN/2026

appeals before us. It was argued that the societies were undoubtedly charitable in nature and due to in-appropriate tax advice they could not submit Form 10AB in time. It was the submission that even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(E) did not deem it fit to condone the delay and adjudicate the cases on merit. It was the submission that there was a considerable body of judicial opinion that was on the point that the filing of Form 10AB in time as prescribed under the Act, was only directory in nature and not mandatory. The Ld. AR concluded his arguments by stating that gross injustice would be done to the charitable organizations under consideration in case a technical approach would be adopted to deny registration u/s 12AB of the Act or 80G of the Act, as the case may be.

3.1 Per contra, the Ld. DR took us through the relevant provisions of the Act and stated that the assessee was duty bound to file the Form 10AB within the prescribed time under the Act and also they should not plead that due to ignorance of law mandatory provision could not be followed.

6 ITA Nos.301,300,298,299 295,276,296 /DDN/2026

10AB is fatal to the application or it is an irregularity which deserves to be condoned, it is understood that there is a considerable body of judicial opinion that lays down that such time lines as prescribed for filing Form 10AB, are directory and not mandatory in nature. We also appreciate the position that the entire procedure for registration of charitable trusts, either u/s 12A or 80G, have undergone a substantial change and it would not be expected that all the individual assessees would be able to comprehend the duties cast on them for seeking fresh registration in a particular and prescribed manner. It is further appreciated that the complexity of the new approval/registration regime is not merely something that the assessee is claiming but it is felt that the complexity has even been acknowledged when the CBDT has issued Circular No.7/2024, recognizing the fact that charitable institutions have faced genuine difficulties in following the new procedures. In a Co-ordinate Bench order in the case of Football Players Association of India vs. ITO [in ITA No.414 & 415/Kol/2025, order dated 30.06.2025] a similar issue came up where there was a delay in filing Form 10B. In that case reliance was placed on the following decisions:

(a) FIIT Jee Foundation for Education Research and Training report in 175 taxmann.com 260 (Delhi), order dated 29.04.2025. (b) Laxmannarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra reported in 167 taxmann.com 548 (Gujarat), dated 10.09.2024. (b) Sau Dwarkabai Taj Karwa Charitable Public Trust reported in 174 taxmann.com 245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025.

7 ITA Nos.301,300,298,299 295,276,296 /DDN/2026

been dealt with and the delay has been condoned. We also find that another Co- ordinate Bench order in the case of Amrut Public Charitable Trust vs. ITO, Exemption [in ITA 7387/Mum/2025 order dated 19.01.2026], a similar finding has been given. Respectfully following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Anybody Can Help Foundation vs. ITO (Exemption) in ITA No.7245/Mum/2025 order dated 06.01.2026), and applying the settled judicial principle that procedural prescriptions are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive rights, we hold that the impugned rejection of the assessees’ application is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the light of the above discussions, we set aside the impugned orders in all the seven appeals and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with the following directions:

(i) The Ld. CIT(E) will condone the delay in the filing of Form 10AB on the ground that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and was unintentional. (ii) (ii) The Ld. CIT(E) shall thereafter examine the assessees’ application for approval u/s 80G or 12AB of the Act on merits and grant the approval if the assessees’ are otherwise found to be eligible under the law. 5. In result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, having been remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(E). Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21/07/2027.

Sd- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 21/07/2026

8 ITA Nos.301,300,298,299 295,276,296 /DDN/2026

*PK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI (Dehradun Circuit Bench, Dehradun)