BHARAT VARSHIYA DIYAMBER JAIN TIRTH KSHETRA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 3996/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) 2. ITA No. 3997/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) Bharat Varshiya CIT (Exemption) Diyamber Jain Tirth MTNL Building, 6th Kshetra Trust Vs. Floor, Pedder Road, 2nd Floor, Hira Baug, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – Girgaon SO, Mumbai – 400 026. 400 004. PAN/GIR No. AAATB0436B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mani Jain, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Yogesh Kamat, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee trust, against two separate orders dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(E)”]. Since both appeals arise

2 ITA No. 3996 & 3997 /Mum/2026 Bharat Varshiya Diyamber Jain Tirth Kshetra Trust from interconnected applications filed by the same assessee and involve common facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Condonation of delay 2. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that both appeals were delayed by four days. It was explained that the delay occurred on account of the time consumed in taking the necessary administrative decisions for filing the appeals. The learned Authorised Representative, therefore, prayed that the delay, being short and unintentional, be condoned. 3. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), having regard to the short duration of the delay, did not raise any objection to the condonation thereof. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides. The delay is of only four days and the explanation furnished by the assessee shows that the delay occurred on account of administrative decision-making. There is nothing on record to indicate that the assessee acted negligently or deliberately delayed the filing of the appeals. In view of the shortness of the delay and there being no objection from the Revenue, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of four days in filing both appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

3 ITA No. 3996 & 3997 /Mum/2026 Bharat Varshiya Diyamber Jain Tirth Kshetra Trust 5. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 3997/Mum/2026 are reproduced as under:

4 ITA No. 3996 & 3997 /Mum/2026 Bharat Varshiya Diyamber Jain Tirth Kshetra Trust the objects of the assessee, genuineness of its activities or substantive eligibility for registration. The application for approval under section 80G was also rejected by a separate order dated 31.01.2026 solely as a consequence of the rejection of the application under section 12AB, on the ground that the condition prescribed under section 80G(5)(i) was not fulfilled. 8. The learned AR submitted that the application for registration under section 12AB was rejected solely because the assessee had inadvertently selected an incorrect statutory clause or code while filing Form No. 10AB. It was submitted that the CIT(E) had not recorded any adverse finding regarding the charitable objects of the assessee, the genuineness of its activities or its substantive eligibility for registration. 9. The learned AR further submitted that the defect was procedural in nature and that the application ought to have been considered under the appropriate clause applicable to an institution holding provisional registration. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and both matters be restored to the file of the CIT(E), with a direction to treat the application as having been filed under the appropriate statutory clause or code and to adjudicate the applications on merits. 10. The learned DR relied upon the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E). He, however, did not raise any objection to the matters being restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

5 ITA No. 3996 & 3997 /Mum/2026 Bharat Varshiya Diyamber Jain Tirth Kshetra Trust 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned orders. It is evident from the order relating to registration under section 12AB that the application was rejected solely because the assessee had selected section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of the clause considered appropriate by the CIT(E), namely section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The CIT(E) has not examined the application on merits and has not recorded any adverse finding regarding the charitable nature of the objects, the genuineness of the activities or the substantive eligibility of the assessee for registration. 12. The application seeking approval under section 80G was also rejected only as a consequence of the rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB. Therefore, the foundation of the rejection of the application under section 80G is the rejection of the registration application on account of the selection of an incorrect statutory clause or code. 13. In our considered view, where the relevant particulars and the nature of the application are otherwise discernible from Form No. 10AB and the accompanying documents, the application should not be rejected at the threshold merely because the assessee selected an incorrect clause or code in the electronic form. Such a procedural error can appropriately be rectified by treating the application as having been filed under the applicable statutory provision and thereafter examining the substantive eligibility of the assessee on merits.

6 ITA No. 3996 & 3997 /Mum/2026 Bharat Varshiya Diyamber Jain Tirth Kshetra Trust 14. In view of the above facts and the fair stand taken by both sides, we set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 relating to registration under section 12AB and restore the application dated 29.09.2025 to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to treat the application as having been filed under the appropriate statutory clause or code applicable to an institution holding provisional registration, namely section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, and adjudicate the application on merits in accordance with law. 15. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.01.2026 rejecting the application for approval under section 80G is also set aside and the said application is restored to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) shall reconsider the application under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) after adjudicating the application for registration under section 12AB and shall decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law. 16. Needless to state, the CIT(E) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall consider the documents and explanations placed on record before passing speaking orders. The assessee is also directed to furnish all particulars and documents that may be called for and to extend due cooperation in the proceedings. We have not expressed any opinion on the substantive merits of either application and all contentions are left open. 17. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7 ITA No. 3996 & 3997 /Mum/2026 Bharat Varshiya Diyamber Jain Tirth Kshetra Trust Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 03/07/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai