SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS,HARDWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), DEHRADUN

ITA No.239/DDN/2026 SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.239/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: N.A SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 126-A, Vivek Vihar, Ranipur More, (EXEMPTION), Jwalapur 249407 Distt. Haridwar, Aaykar Bhawan, 13A, Uttarakhand 249407, INDIA. Subhash Road, Dehradun 248001, PAN No. AAPTS0371R Uttarakhand. Appellant Respondent

Assessee by Shri Hemant Arora, FCA & Shri Pavitra H. Arora, CA Revenue by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC)

Date of hearing: 25.06.2026 Pronouncement on 03.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 06.03.2026, passed u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), passed by Ld. CIT(E)-Lucknow. Through this order the application of the assessee for grant of registration has been rejected on account of delayed filing of the requisite form by more than one year.

1.1 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with following grounds of appeal: -

ITA No.239/DDN/2026 SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Exemption), Lucknow erred in rejecting the Appellants application in Form No. 10AB filed under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as not maintainable. 2. That the learned CIT (Exemption) erred in law and on facts in holding that the belated filing of Form No. 10AB was fatal to the Appellants claim, without appreciating that the delay was procedural/technical in nature and ought not to have resulted in denial of substantive approval to a genuine charitable institution. 3. That the impugned order is bad in law as the learned CIT (Exemption) failed to examine the Appellants objects, genuineness of activities, and eligibility on merits, and rejected the application solely on a technical ground of delay, without any adverse finding regarding the charitable character of the Appellant. 4. That the learned CIT (Exemption) failed to appreciate that the provisions relating to registration/approval of charitable institutions are beneficial provisions and are required to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of charity, rather than defeat the same on mere procedural non-compliance. 5. That the learned CIT (Exemption) erred in not appreciating that the delay in filing Form No. 10AB was neither deliberate nor mala fide and that no prejudice whatsoever would have been caused to the Revenue by condoning such delay and examining the application on merits. 6. That the learned CIT (Exemption) erred in passing the impugned order in a mechanical manner, without affording effective and meaningful opportunity to explain the circumstances leading to delay and without considering the principles of natural justice in their proper spirit. 7. That the impugned order is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the scheme and object of sections 12A/12AB and 80G, inasmuch as the Appellant continues to be engaged in genuine charitable activities and there exists no finding of violation of the conditions prescribed under the Act. 8. That the learned CIT (Exemption) ought to have admitted the application in the interest of substantial justice and adjudicated the same on merits instead of rejecting the same as not maintainable.

ITA No.239/DDN/2026 SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS

ITA No.239/DDN/2026 SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the contents of the impugned order.

3.0 We have gone through the records before us and have heard the Ld.AR/DR. It is rather surprising that the assessee has go to such lengths to get his matter heard on merits. Be that as it may, we are aware that it is a well settled proposition that filing of Form 10AB in time is simply a directory principle and not mandatory. At this stage we can do no better than extract some portions from the headnotes in the case of Cartrade Foundation reported in 184 taxmann.com 159 (Mumbai – Trib.) [2026], where the issue of delay in filing Form 10AB has been dealt with as under: -

“At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the first proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) grants the power to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the application if there is reasonable cause for not filing the application within the prescribed time. From the perusal of section 10A(8), which was under consideration before the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Wipro Lid 120221 140 Taxman 221/288 Taxman 491/446 ITR 1(SC), it is found that no such power has been granted to the Assessing Officer to condone the delay in furnishing the declaration, declaration as required, beyond the due date for furnishing the return of income. Thus, in such circumstances, the Supreme Court in Wipro Ltd. (supra) held that the requirements of section 10A(8) are mandatory in nature. However, from a plain reading of the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac), it is evident that the statute authorizes the Commissioner (Exemption) to condone the delay in filing Form No. 10AB upon being satisfied regarding the existence of reasonable cause for the delay [Para 10] In the present case, the provisional registration in Form No. 10AC was granted to the assessee on 31-12-2021, valid up to the assessment year 2024-25. Since as per the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), in case where the Trust or institution has been provisionally registered under section 12A18, the application for regularization of provisional registration is required to be made 4

ITA No.239/DDN/2026 SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS by the assessee at least six months prior to the expiry of the provisional registration or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. The Commissioner (Exemption), on the basis that the assessee should have filed an application in Form No. 10AB for regularization of provisional registration, latest by the end of September 2023, rejected the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB on the ground of delay. As noted, as per the assessee, the delay occurred is purely inadvertent and unintentional, caused due to lack of awareness of the newly introduced procedural requirement, on the basis that Trustees were not aware of the amended provisions requiring timely refiling of Form No. 10AB for conversion of provisional approval into final registration. It is found that prior to the insertion of the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), the CBDT was exercising the power for condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10A/10A1B. In order to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in cases of delayed filing of Form No. 10A/10AB, the CBDT vide Circular No.7 of 2024 dated 25-4-2024 extended the timeline for filing Form No.10A/10AD in exercise of powers conferred under section 119. After the insertion of the proviso section 12A(1)(ac) by the Finance (No. 2) Art 2024, with effect from 1-10-2024, the Commissioner (Exemption) has been empowered to condone the delay in filing the application. [Para 11] It is found that, in the present case, reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10AB fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC). It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It is evident from the record that in the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of Form No. 10AB for the regularization of provisional registration. It is further undisputed that the assessee filed Form No. 10AB on 28-3-2025 for the regularization of provisional registration. [Para 12] Having considered the submissions and the reasons stated by the assessee before the Commissioner (Exemption), it is held that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing Form No. 10AB within the prescribed time before the Commissioner (Exemption). Accordingly, the said delay should be condoned [Para 13]”

ITA No.239/DDN/2026 SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS We find that the present case is on a better footing than this case of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench since the assessee has diligently been filing Form 10AB for a consideration on merits. In another case- Saarth Pratishthan, reported in [2026] 185 taxmann.com 331 (Mumbai – Trib.), the following extract from the headnotes are relevant:

“On the issue in the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee regarding delay in filing of Form 10AB is found justifiable and there is no allegation that there was any deliberate attempt by the assessee-trust to delay the filing of Form 10AB. It is also undisputed that the assessee-trust possesses provisional registration under section 12AB, thus the bona-fide of the assessee-trust could not be doubted. The Commissioner (Exemptions) has the authority vested to grant registration by exercising discretion judiciously and to advance the cause of justice by condoning the delay and examining the application on merits. Since there was no observation by the Commissioner (Exemptions) giving any adverse inference qua the objects and activities of the assessee-trust, the rejection of the assessee's applications, only on the solitary ground of delay in filing of appeal, without any finding that delay was deliberately attempted by the assessee would be extraneous and against the principle of natural justice. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and judicial precedents, the impugned rejection orders denying the registration under section 12AB and section 80G are unsustainable, the delay in filing of Form 10AB is condoned and the Commissioner (Exemptions) is directed to re-consider the application of the assessee-trust in Form 10AB for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits. The appeal of assessee is restored back to the file of the Commissioner (Exemptions) to decide the application of assessee in Form 10AB afresh on merits and also reconsider the application for approval under section 80G, which is rejected under usual corollary, merely as a consequence to the rejection of registration under section 12AB. The assessee may, be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard during the set-aside proceedings. [Para 11]” Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee has good and sufficient reason for the delay in filing Form 10AB and for this reason, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(Exemption) for considering

ITA No.239/DDN/2026 SAMVEDNA-CONNECTING SOULS this case on merit. Needless to say, the assessee would be given an opportunity of being heard.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI