CHILD SAVE FOUNDATION,GHATKOPAR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the instant appeal. Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee, which are duly supported by a sworn affidavit, as reasonable, bona fide and plausible, the delay of 10 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in the instant case, the Assessee, a public charitable trust registered on 22.12.2021, was granted provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide Form No. 10AC dated 12.03.2022, valid up to A.Y. 2024-25. Subsequently, the Assessee filed Form No. 10AB on 25.11.2024 seeking regular registration. The Ld. Commissioner, though considered the application, however, rejected the same solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation by about 26 months. Thus, the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal.

We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also carefully considered the submissions advanced by theLd. DR and Ld. Amicus Curiae, who drew our attention to the relevant statutory provisions and the material placed on record.

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act requires a trust holding provisional registration to apply for regular registration at least six months prior to the expiry of the provisional registration or within six months from the commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. However, the expression “within six months from the commencement of its activities” has been interpreted as being applicable principally to newly constituted trusts which had not commenced their activities before obtaining provisional registration.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the Assessee had commenced its charitable activities before the grant of provisional registration dated 12.03.2022. Therefore, the limitation could not have been computed merely with reference to six months from the commencement of its activities, without considering the factual position and the object underlying the newly introduced registration regime.

We further observe that the CBDT, vide Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024, had extended the due date for filing Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act up to 30.06.2024. Since the Assessee filed its application on 25.11.2024, the actual delay was only 148 days and not 26 months as determined by the Ld. Commissioner.

The Assessee explained that the delay occurred due to a bona fide misconception and lack of clarity regarding the newly introduced provisions governing provisional and regular registration. We further observe that the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 inserted a proviso to section 12A(1)(ac), with effect from 01.10.2024, empowering the Ld. Commissioner to condone the delay where reasonable cause was shown. Therefore, on the date on which the Assessee filed Form No. 10AB, the Ld. Commissioner was statutorily empowered to examine and condone the delay upon being satisfied about the existence of reasonable cause.

In Tirth Global Foundation v. ITO,ITA Nos. 7265 & 7266/Mum/2025, order dated 02.02.2026, the Co-ordinate Bench, while dealing directly with delayed filing of Form No. 10AB seeking regular registration under section 12AB, observed that where no defect had been found in the objects or activities of the trust and the delay did not appear to be deliberate, the matter deserved to be restored to the Ld. Commissioner for fresh consideration in the light of the proviso empowering condonation of delay.

In the instant case, the Ld. Commissioner has not recorded any adverse finding regarding the charitable objects, genuineness of the activities or eligibility of the Assessee for registration. The application was rejected purely on the technical ground of limitation. The explanation that the delay occurred due to a bona fide misunderstanding of the newly introduced registration regime appears reasonable and plausible, particularly when the Legislature itself subsequently conferred an express power upon the Ld. Commissioner to condone such delay.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, the nominal delay of 148 days, the reasonable and bona fide explanation offered by the Assessee, the statutory amendment empowering condonation and the principles laid down by the Co- ordinate Benches, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10AB.

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remanded to his file with a direction to consider the Assessee‟s application for regular registration on merits, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and independently examining the objects, genuineness of the activities and fulfilment of the other statutory conditions.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.