SHREE YOGESHWAR SHANKAR SEVA SAMITI ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2128/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2026AY 2025-268 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application solely on the ground of delay in filing Form 10AB was legally unsustainable, especially for long-standing institutions. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for regularisation of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but it was rejected by the CIT(E) for being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The assessee had commenced activities before obtaining provisional registration.

What were the issues?

Whether the application for regularisation of provisional registration under section 12AB was filed within the prescribed time limit, and if not, whether the delay could be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal – SR DR
Hearing: 21/05/2026Pronounced: 22/05/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2128/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2025-26

Shree Yogeshwar Shankar CIT (Exemptions), Room No. 601, Seva Samiti, Amir Baug No.-2, 6th Floor, Chumballa Hill, MTNL Punjabi Chawl, P L Lokhande Vs. TE Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Marg, Chembur West, Mumbai Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, – 400089, Maharashtra. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400089, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AAQTS 6970 F Appellant Respondent

: Shri Chandrakant Dhalpe Assessee by : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal – SR DR Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 21/05/2026 Date of pronouncement : 22/05/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(E)”], whereby the application filed by the assessee seeking regularisation of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came to be rejected.

2.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The assessee had filed an

ITA No. ITA No. 2128/MUM/2026 2 Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti

application in Form No.10AB seeking regularisation of provisional application in Form No.10AB seeking regularisation of provisional application in Form No.10AB seeking regularisation of provisional registration granted under section 12AB of the Act. The learned registration granted under section 12AB of the Act. The learned registration granted under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E), however, rejected the application primarily on the ground CIT(E), however, rejected the application primarily on the ground CIT(E), however, rejected the application primarily on the ground that the same had not been filed with that the same had not been filed within the period prescribed in the period prescribed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. While doing so, the under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. While doing so, the under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. While doing so, the learned CIT(E) observed that although the assessee had been learned CIT(E) observed that although the assessee had been learned CIT(E) observed that although the assessee had been granted provisional registration vide Form No.10AC dated granted provisional registration vide Form No.10AC dated granted provisional registration vide Form No.10AC dated 22.06.2022 valid up to Assessment Year 2025 22.06.2022 valid up to Assessment Year 2025–26, the 26, the assessee had commenced its charitable activities immediately after had commenced its charitable activities immediately after had commenced its charitable activities immediately after obtaining provisional registration and, therefore, according to the obtaining provisional registration and, therefore, according to the obtaining provisional registration and, therefore, according to the learned CIT(E), the application for regularisation ought to have learned CIT(E), the application for regularisation ought to have learned CIT(E), the application for regularisation ought to have been filed within six months from commencement of activi been filed within six months from commencement of activi been filed within six months from commencement of activities, i.e., by December 2022. Since the application in Form No.10AB i.e., by December 2022. Since the application in Form No.10AB i.e., by December 2022. Since the application in Form No.10AB was filed only on 16.04.2025, the learned CIT(E) treated the same was filed only on 16.04.2025, the learned CIT(E) treated the same was filed only on 16.04.2025, the learned CIT(E) treated the same as delayed by more than 27 months and consequently rejected as delayed by more than 27 months and consequently rejected as delayed by more than 27 months and consequently rejected the application. The learned CIT(E) further held that ignoranc The learned CIT(E) further held that ignoranc The learned CIT(E) further held that ignorance of law could not constitute a valid defence and that compliance with law could not constitute a valid defence and that compliance with law could not constitute a valid defence and that compliance with the statutory requirement of filing Form No.10AB within the the statutory requirement of filing Form No.10AB within the the statutory requirement of filing Form No.10AB within the prescribed time was mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard prescribed time was mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard prescribed time was mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. reported in (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) reported in (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) reported in (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) and Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1. The learned CIT(E), therefore, concluded that no (2018) 9 SCC 1. The learned CIT(E), therefore, concluded that no (2018) 9 SCC 1. The learned CIT(E), therefore, concluded that no reasonable cause had been shown by the assessee for reasonable cause had been shown by the assessee for reasonable cause had been shown by the assessee for condonation of delay and accordingly rejected the application for f delay and accordingly rejected the application for f delay and accordingly rejected the application for registration. The relevant finding of ld CIT(E) is reproduced as relevant finding of ld CIT(E) is reproduced as relevant finding of ld CIT(E) is reproduced as under:

ITA No. ITA No. 2128/MUM/2026 3 Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti

“3. On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the applicant, it On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the applicant, it On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the applicant, it was found that the application was not complete, an was found that the application was not complete, and all the documents d all the documents required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice notice notice was was was issued issued issued to to to the the the applicant applicant applicant vide vide vide DIN DIN DIN & & & Notice Notice Notice No. No. No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025 ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025-26/1080387933(1) dated 06.09.2025 requesting 26/1080387933(1) dated 06.09.2025 requesting the applicant to furnish the complete s the applicant to furnish the complete set of documents mentioned in Rule et of documents mentioned in Rule 17A(2). However, no response was received in this regard. A reminder was 17A(2). However, no response was received in this regard. A reminder was 17A(2). However, no response was received in this regard. A reminder was issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025 issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025 issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025- 26/1081704124(1) dated 13.10.2025. However, no response was received. 26/1081704124(1) dated 13.10.2025. However, no response was received. 26/1081704124(1) dated 13.10.2025. However, no response was received. Again, a final opportunity was provided to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. nal opportunity was provided to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. nal opportunity was provided to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025 ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025-26/1082202950(1) dated 31.10.2025 to comply 26/1082202950(1) dated 31.10.2025 to comply with the terms of above mentioned notices. In response, the applicant with the terms of above mentioned notices. In response, the applicant with the terms of above mentioned notices. In response, the applicant requested for adjournment through ITBA/E requested for adjournment through ITBA/E-filing portal on 05.11.2025. In al on 05.11.2025. In view of the same, adjournment and a final opportunity was provided to the view of the same, adjournment and a final opportunity was provided to the view of the same, adjournment and a final opportunity was provided to the applicant applicant applicant vide vide vide DIN DIN DIN & & & Notice Notice Notice No. No. No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025 ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025 ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025- 26/1082738692(1) dated 18.11.2025. In response, applicant filed its 26/1082738692(1) dated 18.11.2025. In response, applicant filed its 26/1082738692(1) dated 18.11.2025. In response, applicant filed its submission through ITBA/E submission through ITBA/E-filing portal on 21.11.2025. 3.1 After perusal of the submission, it is seen that the Trust has filed perusal of the submission, it is seen that the Trust has filed perusal of the submission, it is seen that the Trust has filed application in Form 10AB for regularization of provisional registration order application in Form 10AB for regularization of provisional registration order application in Form 10AB for regularization of provisional registration order u/s 12A on 16.04.2025. The trust has obtained provisional approval in Form u/s 12A on 16.04.2025. The trust has obtained provisional approval in Form u/s 12A on 16.04.2025. The trust has obtained provisional approval in Form 10AC dated 22.06.2022 valid upto AY 202 10AC dated 22.06.2022 valid upto AY 2025-26. As per section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) 26. As per section 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the Income tax Act: of the Income tax Act: where the trust or institution has been provisionally registered under where the trust or institution has been provisionally registered under where the trust or institution has been provisionally registered under section 12AB, at least six months prior to expiry of period of the at least six months prior to expiry of period of the section 12AB, provisional registration provisional registration or within six months of commence within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. its activities, whichever is earlier. In view of the above provisions, as the applicant has been carrying out In view of the above provisions, as the applicant has been carrying out In view of the above provisions, as the applicant has been carrying out activities since obtaining provisional registration, an application in Form 10AB activities since obtaining provisional registration, an application in Form 10AB activities since obtaining provisional registration, an application in Form 10AB for regularization should be filed within six months of for regularization should be filed within six months of start of activities i.e. start of activities i.e. December, 2022. However, the Trust has filed application in Form 10AB for December, 2022. However, the Trust has filed application in Form 10AB for December, 2022. However, the Trust has filed application in Form 10AB for regularization of provisional registration order u/s 12A on 16.04.2025 i.e. regularization of provisional registration order u/s 12A on 16.04.2025 i.e. regularization of provisional registration order u/s 12A on 16.04.2025 i.e. after a delay of more than 27 months which is not valid as per the above after a delay of more than 27 months which is not valid as per the above after a delay of more than 27 months which is not valid as per the above provisions. In view of this, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant vide DIN & In view of this, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant vide DIN & In view of this, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025 Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025-26/1083852480(1) dated 18.12.2025 26/1083852480(1) dated 18.12.2025 and explanations were called for regarding the above and explanations were called for regarding the above-mentioned violations. mentioned violations. Additionally, information like pro Additionally, information like proof of expense alongwith copy of bank of of expense alongwith copy of bank statement, details of donors etc were called for vide the same notice dated statement, details of donors etc were called for vide the same notice dated statement, details of donors etc were called for vide the same notice dated 18.12.2025. In response, the applicant made its submission through ITBA/E 18.12.2025. In response, the applicant made its submission through ITBA/E 18.12.2025. In response, the applicant made its submission through ITBA/E- filing portal. 4. Regarding the issue of delay in filing of applicati Regarding the issue of delay in filing of application, the relevant para is on, the relevant para is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: "c)It is respectfully submitted that the applicant was under a bona fide belied "c)It is respectfully submitted that the applicant was under a bona fide belied "c)It is respectfully submitted that the applicant was under a bona fide belied that the application is to be filed before six month the end of validity period of that the application is to be filed before six month the end of validity period of that the application is to be filed before six month the end of validity period of provisional registration i.e A.Y. 2025 provisional registration i.e A.Y. 2025-26. Accordingly, the application was filed rdingly, the application was filed

ITA No. ITA No. 2128/MUM/2026 4 Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti

on 16.04.2025. Thus the application was filed under bona fide belief and on 16.04.2025. Thus the application was filed under bona fide belief and on 16.04.2025. Thus the application was filed under bona fide belief and understanding of the provisions of law. understanding of the provisions of law. d) There was no mala fide intention, concealment of facts. Or deliberate non d) There was no mala fide intention, concealment of facts. Or deliberate non d) There was no mala fide intention, concealment of facts. Or deliberate non- compliance on the part of the a compliance on the part of the applicant. The trust has always acted in good pplicant. The trust has always acted in good faith and has complied with the provisions of the Income Tax Act to the best of faith and has complied with the provisions of the Income Tax Act to the best of faith and has complied with the provisions of the Income Tax Act to the best of its understanding. e) the applicant trust is a genuine charitable institution carrying out its e) the applicant trust is a genuine charitable institution carrying out its e) the applicant trust is a genuine charitable institution carrying out its activities strictly in accordance wi activities strictly in accordance with its objects, and eh delay is due to bona th its objects, and eh delay is due to bona- fide belief and based on incorrect understanding of provisions of the law fide belief and based on incorrect understanding of provisions of the law fide belief and based on incorrect understanding of provisions of the law f) it is therefore, humbly prayed that, considering the bona fide belief, absence f) it is therefore, humbly prayed that, considering the bona fide belief, absence f) it is therefore, humbly prayed that, considering the bona fide belief, absence of any malafide intent, and the charitable nature of the of any malafide intent, and the charitable nature of the trust, the delay in trust, the delay in filing Form 10AB may kindly be condoned, and registration of the trust be filing Form 10AB may kindly be condoned, and registration of the trust be filing Form 10AB may kindly be condoned, and registration of the trust be granted in the interest of justice and equity......" granted in the interest of justice and equity......" 4.1 The contention of the applicant is not acceptable. It is well settled in The contention of the applicant is not acceptable. It is well settled in The contention of the applicant is not acceptable. It is well settled in principle that ignorance of law principle that ignorance of law cannot be pleaded as defence or valid excuse. cannot be pleaded as defence or valid excuse. The applicant trust is supposed to comply with the provisions of law. It is The applicant trust is supposed to comply with the provisions of law. It is The applicant trust is supposed to comply with the provisions of law. It is clarified that the obligation to furnish Form No. 10AB within the prescribed clarified that the obligation to furnish Form No. 10AB within the prescribed clarified that the obligation to furnish Form No. 10AB within the prescribed due date is a statutory and substantive requirement, not statutory and substantive requirement, not a mere procedural a mere procedural formality. When an assessee seeks to avail the benefit of an exemption under formality. When an assessee seeks to avail the benefit of an exemption under formality. When an assessee seeks to avail the benefit of an exemption under section 11(2) of the Act, being a beneficial provision, strict compliance with the section 11(2) of the Act, being a beneficial provision, strict compliance with the section 11(2) of the Act, being a beneficial provision, strict compliance with the prescribed conditions is necessary. This includes the timely filing of Form N prescribed conditions is necessary. This includes the timely filing of Form N prescribed conditions is necessary. This includes the timely filing of Form No. 10AB within the due date specified under section 12A of the Act. 10AB within the due date specified under section 12A of the Act. 10AB within the due date specified under section 12A of the Act. 4.2 This position has been reaffirmed by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme This position has been reaffirmed by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme This position has been reaffirmed by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) Court in the cases of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) Court in the cases of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) where the Apex Court has held that compl where the Apex Court has held that compliance with statutory conditions, iance with statutory conditions, such as filing within the prescribed time is mandatory and cannot be relaxed, such as filing within the prescribed time is mandatory and cannot be relaxed, such as filing within the prescribed time is mandatory and cannot be relaxed, as exemption is a matter of legislative grace and available only upon strict as exemption is a matter of legislative grace and available only upon strict as exemption is a matter of legislative grace and available only upon strict fulfilment of the prescribed requirements. fulfilment of the prescribed requirements. Reliance is also placed o Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of n the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1, where it was Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1, where it was Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1, where it was held that exemption notifications must be read strictly, and the person held that exemption notifications must be read strictly, and the person held that exemption notifications must be read strictly, and the person claiming the exemption has to clearly prove eligibility. claiming the exemption has to clearly prove eligibility. It was also held that if It was also held that if there is ambiguity about the scope of an exemption, the benefit of such there is ambiguity about the scope of an exemption, the benefit of such there is ambiguity about the scope of an exemption, the benefit of such ambiguity will go to the Revenue and not to the assesse ambiguity will go to the Revenue and not to the assessee. 4.3 It is pertinent to mention that the Board has provided various extensions It is pertinent to mention that the Board has provided various extensions It is pertinent to mention that the Board has provided various extensions and general condonation, latest vide Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 condonation, latest vide Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 condonation, latest vide Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 to file/re-file the application for registration in case the Trusts have failed to do file the application for registration in case the Trusts have failed to do file the application for registration in case the Trusts have failed to do so or the application got rejected under specified grounds. However, the so or the application got rejected under specified grounds. However, the so or the application got rejected under specified grounds. However, the applicant has failed to avail the applicant has failed to avail the benefit of the same. Also, the applicant has benefit of the same. Also, the applicant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for delay or to establish that the not been able to show any reasonable cause for delay or to establish that the not been able to show any reasonable cause for delay or to establish that the applicant trust had genuine hardship in filing of the application within the due applicant trust had genuine hardship in filing of the application within the due applicant trust had genuine hardship in filing of the application within the due date. In absence of a reasonable cause of delay the date. In absence of a reasonable cause of delay the request of the applicant request of the applicant for condonation of delay is not acceptable. for condonation of delay is not acceptable.

ITA No. ITA No. 2128/MUM/2026 5 Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti

5.

Since registration under section 12AB is to be granted in terms of the Since registration under section 12AB is to be granted in terms of the Since registration under section 12AB is to be granted in terms of the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act after being satisfied about the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act after being satisfied about the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act after being satisfied about the objects of the trust or institution, objects of the trust or institution, the genuineness of activities, and the the genuineness of activities, and the compliance of any other law for the time being in force as are material for the compliance of any other law for the time being in force as are material for the compliance of any other law for the time being in force as are material for the purposes of achieving its objects. In view of the above mentioned violations, purposes of achieving its objects. In view of the above mentioned violations, purposes of achieving its objects. In view of the above mentioned violations, the undersigned is left with no other option but to reject the undersigned is left with no other option but to reject the undersigned is left with no other option but to reject the application seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. However, the applicant is seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. However, the applicant is seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. However, the applicant is at liberty to pursue the remedies available in Statute, without any prejudice. at liberty to pursue the remedies available in Statute, without any prejudice. at liberty to pursue the remedies available in Statute, without any prejudice. 6. In the view of the above, the application for regularization of provisional In the view of the above, the application for regularization of provisional In the view of the above, the application for regularization of provisional registration in Form 10AB filed by the assessee is not allowable on the ground stration in Form 10AB filed by the assessee is not allowable on the ground stration in Form 10AB filed by the assessee is not allowable on the ground of late filing. In conclusion, this application for grant of registration stands . In conclusion, this application for grant of registration stands . In conclusion, this application for grant of registration stands rejected.” 3. The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the assessee was required to assessee was required to file the application for regularisation of file the application for regularisation of provisional registration under section 12AB within six months provisional registration under section 12AB within six months provisional registration under section 12AB within six months from the date of commencement of activities or whether filing of from the date of commencement of activities or whether filing of from the date of commencement of activities or whether filing of such application before expiry of six months from the end of the such application before expiry of six months from the end of the such application before expiry of six months from the end of the provisional registrat provisional registration period would satisfy the statutory ion period would satisfy the statutory requirement. It is an admitted position that the assessee had filed It is an admitted position that the assessee had filed It is an admitted position that the assessee had filed the application six months prior to expiry of the provisional the application six months prior to expiry of the provisional the application six months prior to expiry of the provisional registration period. However, according to the learned CIT(E), registration period. However, according to the learned CIT(E), registration period. However, according to the learned CIT(E), since the assessee had c since the assessee had commenced charitable activities on ommenced charitable activities on provisional registration, the application ought to have been filed provisional registration, the application ought to have been filed provisional registration, the application ought to have been filed the application for regularisation within six months from the application for regularisation within six months from the application for regularisation within six months from commencement of such activities and not before expiry of the commencement of such activities and not before expiry of the commencement of such activities and not before expiry of the provisional provisional registration registration period. period. Pro Proceeding ceeding on on the the said said interpretation, the learned CIT(E) treated the application as interpretation, the learned CIT(E) treated the application as interpretation, the learned CIT(E) treated the application as belated by more than 27 months. belated by more than 27 months.

4.

In our considered opinion, the controversy involved in the In our considered opinion, the controversy involved in the In our considered opinion, the controversy involved in the present appeal now stands squarely covered by the decision of present appeal now stands squarely covered by the decision of present appeal now stands squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in nch of the Tribunal in Anybody Can Help Anybody Can Help

ITA No. ITA No. 2128/MUM/2026 6 Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti

Foundation v. Income Foundation v. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) reported in [2026] reported in [2026] 182 taxmann.com 229. In the said decision, after an elaborate 182 taxmann.com 229. In the said decision, after an elaborate 182 taxmann.com 229. In the said decision, after an elaborate analysis analysis analysis of of of the the the amended amended amended statutory statutory statutory framework framework framework governing governing governing charitable registrations introduced charitable registrations introduced with effect from 01.04.2021, with effect from 01.04.2021, the Coordinate Bench held that where a trust or institution had the Coordinate Bench held that where a trust or institution had the Coordinate Bench held that where a trust or institution had commenced charitable activities much prior to the introduction of commenced charitable activities much prior to the introduction of commenced charitable activities much prior to the introduction of the provisional registration regime, the second limb of clause (iii) the provisional registration regime, the second limb of clause (iii) the provisional registration regime, the second limb of clause (iii) relating to filing of applic relating to filing of application within six months from ation within six months from commencement of activities would have no application. It was commencement of activities would have no application. It was commencement of activities would have no application. It was further held that in such cases, the operative requirement would further held that in such cases, the operative requirement would further held that in such cases, the operative requirement would be filing of the application at least six months prior to expiry of be filing of the application at least six months prior to expiry of be filing of the application at least six months prior to expiry of provisional registration. provisional registration. The relevant finding of the Co evant finding of the Co-ordinate Bench is reproduced as under: Bench is reproduced as under:

“9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee trust available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee trust available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee trust commenced its activities on 01.02.2016, whereas commenced its activities on 01.02.2016, whereas the provisional approval the provisional approval under section 80G was granted on 31.08.2021. Thus, the commencement of under section 80G was granted on 31.08.2021. Thus, the commencement of under section 80G was granted on 31.08.2021. Thus, the commencement of activities clearly predates both the grant of provisional approval and the activities clearly predates both the grant of provisional approval and the activities clearly predates both the grant of provisional approval and the introduction of the provisional approval regime itself with effect from introduction of the provisional approval regime itself with effect from introduction of the provisional approval regime itself with effect from 01.04.2021. 10. The controversy raised before us is no longer res integra. The coordinate 0. The controversy raised before us is no longer res integra. The coordinate 0. The controversy raised before us is no longer res integra. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in National Association for the Blind (supra), after Bench of the Tribunal in National Association for the Blind (supra), after Bench of the Tribunal in National Association for the Blind (supra), after considering and following a series of earlier decisions including Kailashmath considering and following a series of earlier decisions including Kailashmath considering and following a series of earlier decisions including Kailashmath Trust v. CIT (Exemption) [ Trust v. CIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No.1177/Pun/2023, dated 5.01.2024], has IT Appeal No.1177/Pun/2023, dated 5.01.2024], has examined the scheme of section 80G(5) in the light of the amendments examined the scheme of section 80G(5) in the light of the amendments examined the scheme of section 80G(5) in the light of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, the Memorandum explaining the introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, the Memorandum explaining the introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, the Memorandum explaining the provisions, and the Budget Speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister. provisions, and the Budget Speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister. provisions, and the Budget Speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister. 11. The consistent ratio emerging from these decisions is that the concept of The consistent ratio emerging from these decisions is that the concept of The consistent ratio emerging from these decisions is that the concept of provisional approval was primarily introduced to facilitate newly constituted provisional approval was primarily introduced to facilitate newly constituted provisional approval was primarily introduced to facilitate newly constituted trusts or institutions which had not yet commenced their charitable activities. trusts or institutions which had not yet commenced their charitable activities. trusts or institutions which had not yet commenced their charitable activities. The requirement contain The requirement contained in clause (iii) of the proviso to section 80G(5) ed in clause (iii) of the proviso to section 80G(5) prescribing filing of an application within six months from commencement of prescribing filing of an application within six months from commencement of prescribing filing of an application within six months from commencement of activities is intended to operate only in such cases. For trusts and institutions activities is intended to operate only in such cases. For trusts and institutions activities is intended to operate only in such cases. For trusts and institutions which were already in existence and carrying o which were already in existence and carrying on charitable activities prior to n charitable activities prior to the grant of provisional approval, the relevant and operative time limit is the the grant of provisional approval, the relevant and operative time limit is the the grant of provisional approval, the relevant and operative time limit is the requirement to apply at least six months prior to the expiry of the provisional requirement to apply at least six months prior to the expiry of the provisional requirement to apply at least six months prior to the expiry of the provisional approval.

ITA No. ITA No. 2128/MUM/2026 7 Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti

12.

The coordinate Benches have further held that a l 12. The coordinate Benches have further held that a literal interpretation of the iteral interpretation of the phrase "within six months commencement of activities" so as to apply it to phrase "within six months commencement of activities" so as to apply it to phrase "within six months commencement of activities" so as to apply it to long-standing trusts would lead to an absurd and unintended consequence, standing trusts would lead to an absurd and unintended consequence, standing trusts would lead to an absurd and unintended consequence, namely that such trusts would be permanently barred from seeking approval namely that such trusts would be permanently barred from seeking approval namely that such trusts would be permanently barred from seeking approval under section 80G, which could never have been the legislative intent. Such an section 80G, which could never have been the legislative intent. Such an section 80G, which could never have been the legislative intent. Such an interpretation would render the statutory scheme unworkable and defeat the interpretation would render the statutory scheme unworkable and defeat the interpretation would render the statutory scheme unworkable and defeat the object of the amendments introduced to simplify and streamline the object of the amendments introduced to simplify and streamline the object of the amendments introduced to simplify and streamline the registration process. process. 13. Applying the above settled principles, it has been consistently held that above settled principles, it has been consistently held that above settled principles, it has been consistently held that where the assessee trust had commenced its activities much prior to the grant where the assessee trust had commenced its activities much prior to the grant where the assessee trust had commenced its activities much prior to the grant of provisional approval and prior to the introduction of the provisional of provisional approval and prior to the introduction of the provisional of provisional approval and prior to the introduction of the provisional registration regime with effect from 01.04.2 registration regime with effect from 01.04.2021, the second limb of clause (iii) 021, the second limb of clause (iii) of the proviso to section 80G(5) has no application. In such cases, rejection of of the proviso to section 80G(5) has no application. In such cases, rejection of of the proviso to section 80G(5) has no application. In such cases, rejection of the application solely on the ground that it was not filed within six months the application solely on the ground that it was not filed within six months the application solely on the ground that it was not filed within six months from commencement of activities is legally unsustainable. from commencement of activities is legally unsustainable. 14. Respectfully following the binding coordinate Bench decisions and the Respectfully following the binding coordinate Bench decisions and the Respectfully following the binding coordinate Bench decisions and the judicial principles laid down therein, we hold that the rejection of the judicial principles laid down therein, we hold that the rejection of the judicial principles laid down therein, we hold that the rejection of the assessee's application by the CIT(E) on this ground cannot be upheld. assessee's application by the CIT(E) on this ground cannot be upheld. assessee's application by the CIT(E) on this ground cannot be upheld.” 4.1 The Coordinate Bench further held tha The Coordinate Bench further held that adopting a literal t adopting a literal interpretation so as to apply the condition of filing within six interpretation so as to apply the condition of filing within six interpretation so as to apply the condition of filing within six months from commencement of activities to long months from commencement of activities to long months from commencement of activities to long-standing charitable charitable charitable institutions institutions institutions would would would lead lead lead to to to manifestly manifestly manifestly absurd absurd absurd consequences and would permanently disentitle such institu consequences and would permanently disentitle such institu consequences and would permanently disentitle such institutions from seeking regular registration, which could never have been from seeking regular registration, which could never have been from seeking regular registration, which could never have been the legislative intent. The Tribunal accordingly held that rejection the legislative intent. The Tribunal accordingly held that rejection the legislative intent. The Tribunal accordingly held that rejection of such applications solely on the ground that they were not filed of such applications solely on the ground that they were not filed of such applications solely on the ground that they were not filed within six months from commencement of activities w within six months from commencement of activities w within six months from commencement of activities would be legally unsustainable. legally unsustainable.

4.2 Respectfully following the aforesaid binding decision of the Respectfully following the aforesaid binding decision of the Respectfully following the aforesaid binding decision of the Coordinate Bench, we hold that there was no delay on the part of Coordinate Bench, we hold that there was no delay on the part of Coordinate Bench, we hold that there was no delay on the part of the assessee in filing the application for regularisation of the assessee in filing the application for regularisation of the assessee in filing the application for regularisation of provisional registration under se provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act ction 12AB of the Act within the period of six months prior to expiry of provisional registration. If period of six months prior to expiry of provisional registration. If period of six months prior to expiry of provisional registration. If delay any beyond that period may be examined in accordance delay any beyond that period may be examined in accordance delay any beyond that period may be examined in accordance

ITA No. ITA No. 2128/MUM/2026 8 Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti Shree Yogeshwar Shankar Seva Samiti

with law. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E) cannot be sustained. learned CIT(E) cannot be sustained.

4.3 Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(E) is set aside and Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(E) is set aside and Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(E) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for adjudication of the assessee’s the matter is restored to his file for adjudication of the assessee’s the matter is restored to his file for adjudication of the assessee’s application on merits in accordance with law after affording application on merits in accordance with law after affording application on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 22 /05/2026. Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/05/2026 Kunal Kumar, P.S.

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