MULUND VIDYAZANKAR ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

These appeals under consideration are having involved registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act, thus, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order.

Coming to ITA No. 8018/Mum/2025, it is observed that the same pertains to registration u/s 12A of the Act. We observe that the Assessee Trust had obtained provisional approval in Form No. 10AC on 04.10.2022, valid up to A.Y. 2025-26 and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, the Assessee was supposed to file an application for regular registration and/or regularization of the provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act at least six months prior to the expiry of the period of provisional registration or within six months from the commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier.

However, in the instant case, the Assessee filed the relevant application on 31.03.2025. The cognizance of the application filed by the Assessee was taken by the Ld. Commissioner vide notice dated 04.09.2025 and the explanations were called from the Assessee with regard to the alleged violation of the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and also sought information, such as MOU, copy of bank statements and financial statements, etc. However, the Assessee made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner by observing “that there is a delay of more than 23 months in filing Form No. 10AB for regularization of the provisional registration under Section 12A on dated 31.03.2025, which is not filed, as per the above provisions and therefore, the application is not allowable on the ground of late filing”, rejected the application filed by the Assessee. Thus, the Assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred the instant appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessee had filed an application for regular registration u/s 12A of the Act on dated 31.03.2025, which was initially taken into consideration on 15.07.2025, requesting the Assessee to furnish the complete set of documents. However, the Assessee made no response. Thereafter, a reminder was issued by the Ld. Commissioner on 11.08.2025. In response thereto, the Assessee made an online submission vide letter dated 19.08.2025 and thereafter, the Ld. Commissioner considered the delay in filing of such application and issued a show-cause notice to the Assessee vide letter dated 04.09.2025, which ultimately resulted in non-compliance.

The Assessee on being asked has submitted, that there was some miscommunication, as the Chairman and other Trustee of the Assessee Trust are aged about 92-93 years and 70 years respectively and, therefore, cannot be expected to act, as actively as a young man. Therefore, the non-compliance, in the interest of justice, may be condoned by remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, after affording another, maybe last and final opportunity to the Assessee.

The Ld. DR, though refuted the claim of the Assessee, however, not the ages of the Chairman and the Trustee of the Trust (Assessee herein).

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances specific to the effect that the provisions relating to provisional and regular registration were newly introduced during the Covid-19 period and there appears to be confusion in the mind of the Assessee with regard to the limitation period for filing an appropriate application, and the Chairman and Trustee of the Assessee Trust are of very old ages therefore, it is a legitimate expectation that they may not be able to act promptly. Thus, for just and proper decision of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. 3 Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. We also clarify that in case of any subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.

Coming to ITA No. 8019/Mum/2025, it is observed that the same pertains to registration u/s 80G of the Act. As we have remanded the substantive issue pertaining to registration u/s 12A of the Act to the file of the Ld. Commissioner, thus, in view of the same, this appeal is also remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, in the same terms.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms.