SHREE VILE PARLE AATH KOTI NANI PAKSHA STHANAKVASI JAIN SANGH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

The grounds of ITA No. 1551/MUM/2026 are as under:-

Before us, the ld.AR has contended that the applicant was not allowed adequate opportunity of hearing and this, violating the principles of natural justice, denied a valid claim. The ld.DR relied on the impugned order.

We have heard both parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee society was granted provisional registration and had filed “Form 10AB” for regular registration. As observed above, the CBDT, vide Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024, had extended the “due date” for filing such application till 30.06.2024, therefore, there can be no denying the fact that the application filed by P a g e | 6 Shree Vile Parle Aath Koti Nani Paksha Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh the assessee society was beyond the prescribed time limit. However, apart from the delay, we find that the impugned order does not record any defect either in the activities or objects of the assessee company or the documents submitted. Also, it‟s bonafides are not in dispute, and the delay in filing the application, in our considered view, prima facie, does not appear to be deliberate.

1 We find that on identical issue of delay, the coordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Narke Green Foundation Charitable Institution ITA no.1864/Mum/2025 gave following directions: “5.9 At this juncture we refer to the pragmatic approach advocated by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, wherein he advocated a flexible approach to procedural law, that serve as “handmaid” to justice, and not a hinder it. The Principle of Justice Krishna Iyer emphasised that procedural laws should be tools to facilitate administration of justice various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised to strike a balance between strict adherence to procedural rules and the need to ensure that justice is not denied due to technicalities.

10 We agree with the above preposition observed by Hon'ble Pune Tribunal. However genuine and bonafide reason stated by the assessee cannot be over looked. Further we also note that, flexible and pragmatic approach to such procedural laws is necessary as against recognising a strict adherence to do which could sometime lead to injustice. Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of cases always emphasised that while considering delay, one must first ascertain bonafides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation.

11 While condoning the delay it is crucial to ensure the party seeking condonation provide genuine explanation for the delay. In present facts of the case, we note that, the reason that caused delay is based on a bonafide belief on behalf of the assessee without there being any malafide intention.

In our considered opinion assessee must get an opportunity to present its case before the Ld.CIT(E) and to explain the reason that caused the delay. The Ld.CIT(E) shall consider the application of assessee seeking condonation of delay in accordance with law keeping in view to the above principles of natural justice.”

2 We find that the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance Act, 2024 from 01.10.2024 made available on the statute a “Proviso” to Section 12A(1)(ac) that formally allows the ld.CIT(E) to condone the delay, if reasonable cause is shown. We are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the ld.CIT (E) for fresh consideration. The assessee society shall remain at liberty to file an application for the condonation of the delay involved in the filing of the present application in “Form 10AB” seeking regular registration under section 12AB of the Act. The ld.CIT shall consider such application in accordance with the extant law and dispose of the same after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee society. Thus, we set aside the impugned order and send back

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

Grounds of ITA No. 1552/MUM/2026 are as under:-

According to the impugned order, the applicant filed Form 10AB on 08.05.2025 and requested for approval u/s 80G of the Income- tax Act, under clause (iv)-B of first proviso to sub-Section (5) of section 80G of the Act. The applicant had also applied for registration u/s 12AB of the Act vide Form 10AB of the Act which had been rejected vide order dated 29.12.2025.He observed that the applicant failed to fulfill any of the criteria in view of the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

As we have already remanded the issue of grant of registration under section 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, therefore the order rejecting the application for registration under section 80G of the Act is also set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for deciding it afresh. As a result, the grounds raised by the assessee as also the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.