RAJPUT OLDAGE HOME AND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXE WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

At the outset, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 44 days in filing these appeals for which the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. After perusing the facts placed on record, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an old trust registered in year 2008, and thereafter, granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act, by the ld. CIT(E), vide order dated 20.02.2017. It was submitted that the assessee thereafter, applied for provisional registration under the new registration regime which was granted vide order dated 07.04.2022 which was valid for A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2024-25. The assessee thereafter moved an application for the regularization of the provisional registration on 14.09.2024. However, same was rejected by the ld. CIT(E), Mumbai vide order dated 28.03.2025. Thereafter, the assessee moved a fresh application seeking regularization of its provisional registration on 20.06.2025, and notices were initially issued by the office of the ld. CIT(E), Mumbai and in response, the assessee filed its submissions. Thereafter, the application was migrated to the office of the ld. CIT(E), Pune and there also, the assessee filed necessary submissions on 17.12.2025 and without taking into consideration the submissions so filed, the ld. CIT(E) has rejected the assessee’s application u/s. 12AB, for the reason that there was delay in filing of the application as well as non-submission of the list of donors by the assessee trust.

In this regard, it was submitted that ld. CIT(E), Pune has not taken into consideration the fact that the assessee has originally applied for regularization of the provisional registration in September, 2024 and because of the rejection of the said application, the assessee, left with no option, was advised to move a fresh application and accordingly, the assessee moved a fresh application on 20.06.2024. It was further submitted that the earlier application was filed on 30.09.2024 as the provisional approval was granted till the end of the A.Y. 2024-25 and the assessee trust was under the impression that, as the provisional approval

The ld. DR has been heard who has relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(E).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee was granted provisional registration vide order dated 07.04.2022 which was valid for A.Y. 2022- 23 to A.Y. 2024-25 and thereafter, the assessee has moved an application for regularization of provisional registration on 30.09.2024 which was rejected and instead of seeking restoration of its application, the assessee

The new registration scheme and its applicability to existing trusts and new trusts have posed its own set of challenges resulting to interpretation issues, clarification from the CBDT and extension of timelines from time to time and fresh amendments in the statue and delegation of powers to the CIT(E) to condone the delay and matters have travelled to Courts and Tribunal in large numbers. The same is evident in the instant case where period of validity of the provisional approval in terms of assessment year and previous year being wrongly understood, the rejection of its initial approval for regularization of provisional registration inspite of CBDT circulars extending the due date, non- seeking of restoration of its application and moving a fresh application, migration of its application from one jurisdiction to another and due to IT challenges or otherwise, non-consideration of submissions which has resulted in rejection of its present application.

Admittedly, the assessee trust is an existing charitable trust registered in year 2008 and has been granted original registration u/s 12A and since been engaged in running an old age home and providing medical treatment to the needy and elderly persons. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice shall prevail and the assessee therefore deserved to be heard and its application be considered on merits instead of being rejected at the very threshold. The Courts and the Tribunal have consistently held that the technical considerations should not come in the way of matter relating to substantial justice and especially in the context of Charitable trusts, even

Consequently, the assessee’s application u/s. 80G which was rejected on account of rejection of Section 12AB is also set aside to the file of ld. CIT(E) to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 17.07.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS