DESH SEVA SAMITI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5894/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) Desh Seva Samiti CIT(Exemptions), CA Himanshu Gandhi, Room No. 601, MTNL 16th Floor, D Wing, Vs. Building, 6th Floor, Trade World Building, Cumballa Hill, Pedder Kamala Mills Road, Mumbai- Compound, Lower 400 026 Parel, Mumbai-400 013 PAN/GIR No. AACCD3801B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 22.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(E)”] under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

2 ITA No. 5894/Mum/2026 Desh Seva Samiti for A.Y. 2026-27 rejecting the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking regularization of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act. 2. Originally, the present appeal was listed on the applications moved by the assessee seeking early hearing. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that due to inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause while filing the online application pursuant to the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, provisional registration came to be granted instead of regular re-registration. It was further submitted that complete replies along with supporting documents had been filed before the learned CIT(E) and copies thereof were also placed in the paper book before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that despite furnishing explanation regarding the inadvertent error and seeking condonation, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No.10AB.. 3. Considering the nature of controversy involved, the grounds raised in the appeal, the material placed before us including the replies and supporting documents filed by the assessee, and the submissions advanced by the learned AR during the course of hearing, and further since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the applications for early hearing were acceded to. Accordingly, with the consent of both the litigating parties, instead of merely considering the request for priority hearing, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing in open Court today and heard on merits.

3 ITA No. 5894/Mum/2026 Desh Seva Samiti 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

4 ITA No. 5894/Mum/2026 Desh Seva Samiti The ld. CIT(E) noted that the assessee had earlier been granted provisional registration vide order dated 03.08.2022 in Form No.10AC valid from A.Y. 2023-24 to A.Y. 2025-26. During the course of examination of the application, the ld. CIT(E) observed that the application filed in Form No.10AB was incomplete and the documents required under Rule 17A(2) were not furnished along with the application. Accordingly, notice dated 23.01.2026 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish complete details and supporting documents. 6. Thereafter, on examination of the material available on record and the data available on ITBA/CPC portal, the ld. CIT(E) observed that the assessee had already commenced its activities after obtaining provisional registration on 03.08.2022 and therefore, in terms of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, the assessee ought to have filed the application for regular registration within six months from commencement of its activities or six months prior to expiry of provisional registration, whichever was earlier. According to the ld. CIT(E), the assessee ought to have filed the application latest by February, 2023, whereas the application was filed only on 27.09.2025 after a delay of more than 30 months. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(E) issued a show cause notice dated 16.02.2026 requiring the assessee to explain as to why the application should not be rejected as barred by limitation. 7. The ld. CIT(E) further observed that the assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the delay in filing

5 ITA No. 5894/Mum/2026 Desh Seva Samiti the application and also failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause or genuine hardship for not filing the application within the prescribed time limit. The ld. CIT(E) also referred to CBDT Circular No.07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 granting relaxation in certain cases and observed that the assessee failed to avail the benefit of the said relaxation within the stipulated period. The ld. CIT(E) further held that filing of Form No.10AB within the prescribed due date was a substantive statutory requirement and not a mere procedural formality. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1. Finally, vide order dated 17.03.2026 passed under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB on the ground of delayed filing of the application. 8. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an old charitable institution incorporated on 16.02.2005 and had already been granted registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G much prior to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2020. It was submitted that while applying for re-registration pursuant to the amended provisions, due to inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause in the online application, provisional registration came to be granted instead of regular re-registration. It was further submitted that complete replies along with supporting documentary evidences had in fact been filed before the office of the ld. CIT(E) and copies

6 ITA No. 5894/Mum/2026 Desh Seva Samiti thereof were also placed in the paper book filed before the Tribunal. The ld. AR further submitted that despite furnishing explanation regarding the inadvertent error and requesting condonation of delay, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form No.10AB without appreciating the correct factual and legal position. 9. The learned Departmental Representative also fairly submitted that he has no serious objection if the matter is restored back for fresh adjudication. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed factual position emerging from the record is that the assessee was already enjoying registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G since earlier years and therefore prima facie was not a newly established trust seeking provisional registration for the first time. The contention of the assessee that while applying for re-registration pursuant to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2020, an incorrect clause came to be selected inadvertently in the electronic application resulting into grant of provisional registration instead of regular registration, requires proper examination and verification at the end of the ld. CIT(E). 11. We further notice that the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application primarily on the technical ground of limitation without properly examining the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding inadvertent filing under the wrong category and without

7 ITA No. 5894/Mum/2026 Desh Seva Samiti appreciating the historical registration status of the assessee trust. In our considered opinion, the issue requires fresh examination in the light of the factual contention advanced by the assessee that it was already an existing registered charitable institution and was not a newly created trust seeking provisional registration. 12. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. In the peculiar facts of the present case, where the assessee was admittedly enjoying registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G since earlier years and the delay appears to have occurred on account of inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause while filing the online application pursuant to the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2020, we direct the ld. CIT(E) to condone the delay in filing Form No.10AB. The ld. CIT(E) is further directed to examine the explanation of the assessee regarding inadvertent filing of application under the wrong clause, consider the historical registration status of the assessee and thereafter process and decide the application under the appropriate statutory provision in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim and all issues are left open for adjudication by the ld. CIT(E).

8 ITA No. 5894/Mum/2026 Desh Seva Samiti 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 25/05/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 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