GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8420/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: - GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE OF Vs. CIT EXEMPTION, MEDICAL SCIENCES, Aayakar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Marg, University Road, Kasna, Greater Hazratganj, Lucknow, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, 201301. Uttar Pradesh 226001. PAN No. AADAM0695B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Shikhar Garg, Adv. Revenue by Shri E.V. Bhaskar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 25.09.2026 Pronouncement on 25.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. In this case, the assessee has filed a petition seeking early hearing in the matter, vide application dated 01.09.2026.

2.1 The Ld. AR averred that an early hearing was requested since the approval u/s 80G of the Act was essential for mobilizing the required funds for the functioning of the Institution. It was emphasized that without the benefit of Section 80G, the donors would not be forthcoming and the Appellant-Institution would suffer serious harm.

2.2 The Ld. AR took us through the impugned order in this case and pointed out that in the very short and cryptic order the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that the assessee was required to file an application in Form 10AB on or before 30.09.2024 and since this application was filed on 30.09.2025, hence, the same could not be entertained as it was time barred. The Ld. AR alternatively prayed that this matter could be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(Exemption) for consideration on merits.

4.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

4.2 At this stage, we may capture the facts in brief to appreciate the grievance of the assessee. It is seen that the assessee was granted provisional approval u/s 80G of the Act vide order dated 12.05.2022. This registration was available from AY 2023-24 to 2025-26. Thus, admittedly the registration was available till 31.03.2025. However, the assessee is seen to have filed the application for obtaining registration u/s 80G(5) of the Act, vide application in Form 10AB dated 30.09.2025. The Ld. CIT(Exemption) has rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the application in Form 10AB should have been filed on or before 30.09.2024 and thus it is a belated application.

4.3 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging this rejection on the basis that the assessee was duly eligible for such registration and it is also averred that the application in Form 10AB filed on 30.09.2025, was not belated.

5.1 The Ld. DR stated that the filing of Form 10AB was a statutory responsibility and the assessee should move the CBDT for condoning the delay in filing Form 10AB.

“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 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. 6 10AB within the prescribed time before the Commissioner (Exemption). Accordingly, the said delay should be condoned [Para 13]” In another case of Saarth Pratishthan reported in [2026] 185 taxmann.com 331 (Mumbai–Trib.), the following extract from the headnotes is 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 of this case, the impugned order is set aside and this matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(Exemption) for considering the case on merits.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.09.2026 *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