DANI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEM WARD 1(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5559/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the applications were rejected on the ground of limitation without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to consider the condonation of delay application.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G were rejected by the CIT(E) solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No. 10AB. The assessee contended that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications for registration and approval solely on the ground of delay without providing an opportunity of hearing. Whether the delay in filing Form No. 10AB can be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri K Shivram & Shri Rahul
For Respondent: Shri Azhar Kabir, SR DR
Hearing: 10/07/2026Pronounced: 10/07/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate impugned orders dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, whereby the assessee’s applications seeking registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been rejected on the ground that Form No. 10AB was filed beyond the

2 ITA No.5559/Mum/2026 & 5560/Mum/2026 Dani Foundation prescribed time limit. Since common facts and identical issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected the applications solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No. 10AB without issuing any show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was further submitted that the assessee intends to seek condonation of delay in terms of the relevant CBDT Circular/Guidelines governing delayed filing of Form No. 10AB. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The learned Departmental Representative fairly left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the applications have been rejected on the ground that Form No. 10AB was filed belatedly. It is also an undisputed position that no effective show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee before passing the impugned orders. In our considered opinion, before rejecting an application on the ground of limitation, particularly when the issue of condonation of delay is governed by the CBDT Circulars and the assessee seeks to avail the benefit thereof, an effective

3 ITA No.5559/Mum/2026 & 5560/Mum/2026 Dani Foundation opportunity ought to be afforded to enable the assessee to place all relevant facts and seek appropriate relief.

4.

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned orders and restore both the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E). The assessee shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay along with all supporting material. The learned CIT(E) shall consider the assessee’s request in the light of the applicable CBDT Circulars/Guidelines relating to condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10AB and thereafter decide the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on their own merits, in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the proceedings.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 10th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 10/07/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

4 ITA No.5559/Mum/2026 & 5560/Mum/2026 Dani Foundation

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →