SHRI SANT SITARAMBUA WALAWALKAR CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications on the ground of delay without granting the assessees a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place their case for condonation. While the assessees had responded to notices and furnished documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noted a lack of comments or clarification regarding the delay. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's specific contention that no show-cause notice was issued concerning the delay. Considering this, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the explanation for delay or the entitlement to registration/approval, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees to file their explanation for condonation of delay with supporting evidence. If the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) is to adjudicate the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues regarding the sufficiency of the cause for delay and the merits of the applications were kept open for the Ld. CIT(E)'s consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
A batch of appeals were filed by various assessees challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, concerning applications for registration under section 12A/12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reason for rejection by the CIT(E) was the delay in filing the requisite forms, specifically Form No. 10AB, without granting the assessees a specific opportunity to explain the delay and seek condonation. The assessees contended that they were not issued a show-cause notice regarding the delay before the adverse findings were recorded. The CIT(E)'s orders were dated between March 2026 and June 2026 for assessment years ranging from 2025-26 to 2027-28. The Tribunal admitted the appeals for adjudication on merits.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on the ground of delay without providing the assessee with a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and seek its condonation, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contentions: - The applications were rejected primarily on the ground of delay without a specific and effective opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay and seek condonation. - No show-cause notice was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the delay or establish reasonable cause before the adverse finding on condonation was recorded. - The delay, if any, occurred due to a lack of awareness of statutory requirements and absence of proper professional guidance regarding the time limit for filing Form No. 10AB. - An opportunity should be granted to place the explanation and supporting material before the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration. Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. DR argued and relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 12A,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & MS. RATNA DASGUPTA
Heard together (14 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER BENCH: A bunch of appeal pertains to the different assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [for brevity, the “Ld. CIT(E)”] and order passed u/s 12A/12AB/80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity, the “Act”]. The assessee-wise particulars of the respective orders are as follows:- Sl no Appeal No. Delay Impugned Date of Assessment before order u/s impugned order Year ITAT 1 ITA7359-M-2026 15 days 12AB 21.03.2026 2025-26 2 ITA7430-M-2026 143 days 80G 26.11.2025 2026-27
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others
3 ITA7470-M-2026 Nil 12AB 13.04.2026 2026-27 4 ITA7471-M-2026 Nil 80G 13.04.2026 2026-27 5 ITA7490-M-2026 Nil 12A 16.03.2026 2025-26 2026-27 6 ITA7630-M-2026 15 days 12AB 06.04.2026 2026-27 7 ITA7631-M-2026 15 days 80G 06.04.2026 2026-27 8 ITA7638-M-2026 Nil 12AB 19.05.2026 2026-27 9 ITA7639-M-2026 Nil 80G 19.05.2026 10 ITA7668-M-2026 Nil 12A 31.03.2026 2026-27 11 ITA7635-M-2026 Nil 12AB 09.04.2026 2027-28 2026-27 12 ITA7636-M-2026 15 days 12AB 13.04.2026 2026-27 13 ITA7637-M-2026 15 days 80G 13.04.2026 14 ITA7670-M-2026 Nil 80G 27.06.2026 2026-27 2026-27 15 ITA7684-M-2026 15 days 12AB 04.04.2026 2026-27 16 ITA7685-M-2026 15 days 80G 04.04.2026
The delay in filing the respective appeals is condoned, considering the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR explaining the reasons for such delay. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the submissions of the Ld. AR. Accordingly, the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others 3. All the appeals pertain to different assessees; however, they involve a common issue concerning the challenge to the order of the Ld. CIT(E) under section 12A/12AB/80G of the Act. Considering the commonality of the issue involved, for the sake of convenience and brevity, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA No. 7359/Mum/2026 & ITA No. 7470 & 7471/Mum/2026 are taken as the lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal. ITA No. 7470/Mum/2026 & ITA No. 7471/Mum/2026 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust which had filed an application in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) observed that the documents accompanying the application for registration were incomplete. Accordingly, a notice under Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite documents. Upon verification of the trust deed and related documents, the Ld. CIT(E) noticed that the clause relating to “Irrevocable Trust” was absent in the trust deed. Admittedly, the said clause was not incorporated in the trust deed during the course of hearing before the Ld. CIT(E). Considering the aforesaid deficiency, the Ld. CIT(E), vide order dated 28.02.2026, rejected/cancelled the registration sought under section 12AB of the Act. Consequently, the application filed by the assessee seeking approval under section 80G of the Act was also rejected on account of rejection of registration under section 12A of the Act. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) reported in [2026] 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bom) laid down that registration under sections 12AB and 80G could be granted subject to 8
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others compliance with specified conditions. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Ld. CIT(E) passed an order dated 04.04.2026 granting conditional renewal of registration to the assessee. The assessee is now in appeal before us challenging the imposition of such conditional registration. The relevant observations contained in impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) passed u/sec 12A in paragraph 15 are reproduced hereunder: “15. In this case, the instrument of trust does not contain any explicit clause affirming that the transfer of property under trust is an irrevocable transfer for all times. Section 332(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 2025 inter-alia lays down that a public trust is eligible for registration, only if the trust properties are held for the benefit of the general public under an irrevocable trust. The date of commencement of Income Tax Act, 2025 is 1st April 2026 i.e the same date from which renewal of registration/approval has been sought by the applicant. Therefore, the Therefore, the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Statute for registration/approval are not satisfied in this case. However, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Writ Petition(L) No.7587 of 2026 In the case of The Chamber of Tax Consultants &Ors deemed irrevocable by operation of Vs The CIT(E) has held that a public charitable trust is deer law unless the instrument of trust expressly provides a power of revocation and directed the Department to refrain from rejecting applications for registration/renewal under section 12AB solely on the ground of the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause in the Trust Deed/instrument. Revenue is preferring to move a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order. In the background of these facts, this renewal of registration/approval is being granted in respectful compliance to the binding judicial directions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. However, the applicant Trust, doner entities and other stakeholders are hereby informed, by way of abundant caution, that the applicability and consequential tax-benefits of this registration/approval w.e.f. 01.04.2026 onwards, remain subject to outcome of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
Further, related to ITA No.7471/Mum/2026 for approval of registration u/sec. 80G the Ld. CIT(E) had noted the observations in the impugned order in paragraph 5 which is reproduced as below:
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others “5. In this case, the instrument of trust does not contain any explicit clause affirming that the transfer of property under trust is an irrevocable transfer for all times. Section 332(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 2025 inter-alia lays down that a public trust is eligible for registration, only if the trust properties are held for the benefit of the general public under an irrevocable trust. The date of commencement of Income Tax Act, 2025 is 1st April 2026 i.e the same date from which renewal of registration/approval has been sought by the applicant. Therefore, the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Statute for registration/approval are not satisfied in this case. However, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Writ Petition(L) No.7587 of 2026 in the case of The Chamber of Tax Consultants &Ors Vs The CIT(E) has held that a public charitable trust is deemed irrevocable by operation of law unless the instrument of trust expressly provides a power of revocation and directed the Department to refrain from rejecting applications for registration/renewal under section 12AB/80G solely on the ground of the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause in the Trust Deed/instrument. Revenue is preferring to move a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order. In the background of these facts, this renewal of registration/approval is being granted in respectful compliance to the binding judicial directions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. However, the applicant Trust, doner entities and other stakeholders are hereby informed, by way of abundant caution, that the applicability and consequential tax-benefits of this registration/approval w.e.f. 01.04.2026 onwards, remain subject to outcome of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
The Ld. AR contended that the Ld. CIT(E) had granted conditional registration which is beyond his jurisdiction. He argued that the Ld. CIT(E) could not have stipulated conditions on his own (other than what is stipulated in law) while granting registration under section 12AB of the Act as the scheme of the law does not visualize these conditions being part of granting of registration to charitable trust. In any case the assessee is found any fault u/sec 12AB(4) and (5) of the Act or any adverse ruling is passed by the Higher Judicial forum the Ld. CIT(E) is empowered for cancellation of registration. On a practical aspect, the day-to-day activities and functioning of the assessee are being adversely affected due to the conditions imposed by the Ld. CIT(E), which are beyond the scope and
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others stipulations prescribed under the law. The Ld. AR invited our attention in the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai ‘C’ Bench in the case of Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust vs PCIT in ITA No.2168 and 2169/Mum/2021, date of pronouncement 28.09.2022. The relevant observations of the bench contended in paragraph no.9 and paragraph no.32 are reproduced as below: “9. Shri Pardiwala further pointed out that, the Commissioner of Income-tax is a quasi-judicial authority and can only exercise those powers which are expressly conferred upon him under the Act. Absent such explicit conferment, the Commissioner cannot be assumed to have any implied powers. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation vs. CIT (2018) (403 ITR 1), wherein the Court held that prior to the amendments made by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 which conferred on the Commissioner the power to cancel registration, no such implied power could be inferred. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under- "21. In our considered opinion, the CIT had no express power of cancellation of the registration certificate once granted by him to the assessee under Section 12A till 01.10.2004. It is for the reasons that, first, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with the power to cancel the registration certificate granted under Section 12A of the Act. Second, the order passed under Section 12A by the CIT is a quasi judicial order and being quasi judicial in nature, it could be withdrawn/recalled by the CIT only when there was express power vested in him under the Act to do so. In this case there was no such express power. 22. Indeed, the functions exercisable by the CIT under Section 12A are neither legislative and nor executive but as mentioned above they are essentially quasi judicial in nature. 27. It is not in dispute that an express power was conferred on the CIT to cancel the registration for the first time by enacting sub-Section (3) in Section 12AA only with effect from 01.10.2004 by the Finance (No.2) Act 2004 (23 of 2004) and hence such power could be exercised by the CIT only on and after 01.10.2004, i.e., (assessment year 2004-2005) because the amendment in question was not retrospective but was prospective in nature." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 32. Having held so, we now proceed to adjudicate the objections/grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal against the conditions stipulated by the Ld. CIT(E) in his order at Sl No.
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others 10 passed in Form 10AC. Having regard to the rival submissions, we agree with the Ld. AR that the language employed in Section 12AB of the Act does not suggest that while granting registration u/s 12A of the Act the Ld. PCIT/CIT is empowered to stipulate any conditions subject to which registration shall be granted. We are unable to agree with the Ld. CIT-DR's contention that the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in stipulating these conditions as it was set out in prescribed Form 10AC, which at serial 10 says about "conditions subject to which registration being granted". For the elaborate contentions set out by the Ld. Sr. Counsel, as already discussed above, and the case laws cited according to us, the Form prescribed by the CBDT in terms of Rule 17A cannot over-ride or expand the scope of the statutory provision contained in Section 12AB of the Act, we agree with the Ld. AR that the subordinate/delegated legislation which is placed before the Parliament in terms of section 296 of the Act, does not elevate such subordinate legislation to the level of the law enacted by the Parliament, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania Vs CWT (supra) and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of V. Verghese and Anr. Vs DCIT (supra). Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Sr. counsel, it was the relevant Rule as prescribed by the statute, i.e. Rule 17A that was placed before Parliament u/s 296 of the Act and not the Form. We note that there is no mention of conferring of power upon the Ld. CIT to stipulate conditions for granting registration in Rule 17A (already reproduced above) of the Rules. Hence, the contention of the Ld. CIT-DR, that the conditions stipulated at Sl No. 10 of Form 10AC had been placed and impliedly approved by the Parliament cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, if the said Form was indeed placed before the parliament, in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Hukum Chand Vs UOI (supra), it cannot stipulate anything more than what is contained in the extant section/ provision of law as enacted by the Legislature [ie. in this case, Section 12AB of the Act]. We thus agree with the submissions of the Ld. Sr. counsel that the Ld. CIT(E) could not have been empowered to stipulate conditions while granting registration in Form 10AC, which is otherwise not expressly provided in provisions contained in Section 12AB of the Act.”
The Ld. AR further, respectfully relied on Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Bai Navajbai Tata Zoroastrian Girls School vs. CIT(E) reported in (2022) 141 taxmann.com 62 (Mumbai-Trib.)held that Where
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others Commissioner while granting registration under section 12A imposed conditions on assessee- charitable trust with respect to conduct of trust and circumstances in which registration granted to assessee could be cancelled, since aforesaid conditions are regulated by specific provisions of law, Commissioner's guidance about conduct of assessee could not be construed as legally binding and said conditional grant would stand vacated.”
The Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. However, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Ld. CIT(E) to impose conditions while granting registration, the Ld. DR remained silent and was unable to bring on record any contrary judicial precedent rebutting the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The primary issue involved in ITA No.7470/Mum/2026 and ITA No.7471/Mum/2026 relates to the legality and validity of the conditional registration/approval granted by the Ld. CIT(E) under section 12AB and section 80G of the Act respectively. The conditions imposed by the Ld. CIT(E) substantially provide that though the registration/approval is being granted pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), (supra) the consequential benefits shall remain subject to the outcome of the proposed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the judicial precedents relied upon before us, we find considerable force in the submissions advanced by the Ld. AR. The scheme of section 12AB of the Act does not confer any express power upon the Ld. CIT(E) to impose independent conditions while granting registration to a charitable trust, except to the extent specifically contemplated under the Act. The power of cancellation or withdrawal of registration is separately governed
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others by the provisions of section 12AB(4) and section 12AB(5) of the Act, which empower the authority to cancel the registration upon occurrence of specified violations or non-genuine activities. Therefore, once the assessee satisfies the conditions prescribed under the statute for grant of registration, the Ld. CIT(E) cannot travel beyond the scope of the Act and impose precautionary or contingent conditions based upon a possible future outcome of litigation before a higher judicial forum.
We respectfully follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Chamber ofIndian Charitable Trust (supra) wherein it has been categorically held that neither section 12AB nor Rule 17A empowers the Ld. CIT(E) to impose conditions while granting registration. The Coordinate Bench further held that the prescribed Form No.10AC cannot enlarge or expand the scope of the substantive statutory provision enacted by the Legislature. We further find support from the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Bai Navajbai Tata Zoroastrian Girls School (supra) wherein it was held that conditions imposed while granting registration, relating to future conduct of the trust or circumstances for cancellation, are merely advisory in nature and cannot be construed as legally enforceable conditions since the field is already occupied by specific statutory provisions.
In the present case, the registration and approval have admittedly been granted by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, once registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G have been granted, the consequential benefits flowing there from cannot be kept in a suspended or conditional state merely because the revenue proposes to challenge the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So long as the
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court continues to hold the field, the authorities functioning within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court are duty bound to follow the same in letter and spirit.
We also find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that the impugned conditions are adversely affecting the day-to-day functioning of the assessee trust and creating uncertainty in relation to its charitable activities, donor confidence and statutory compliances. Such conditions, which are not contemplated under the statute, cannot be permitted to continue. At the same time, we clarify that the registration granted under section 12AB and approval granted under section 80G are not perpetual or lifelong registrations. Under the prevailing statutory scheme, such registrations are granted only for the prescribed period of five years and remain subject to renewal in accordance with law. Therefore, adequate safeguards are already available with the revenue authorities under the Act itself in the event of any future violation, non-genuine activity or any change in the legal position arising from a judicial pronouncement of a higher forum. Hence, imposition of additional contingent conditions by the Ld. CIT(E) was wholly unnecessary and beyond jurisdiction.
In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the judicial precedents discussed hereinabove, we direct the Ld. CIT(E) to delete/vacate the impugned conditions imposed while granting registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Act. Accordingly, ITA No.7470/Mum/2026 and ITA No.7471/Mum/2026 filed by the assessee stand allowed.
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others ITA No. 7359/Mum/2026
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust. It had obtained provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act vide order dated 03.08.2022, having validity from A.Y. 2023-24 to A.Y. 2025-26. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 17.08.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act seeking regularisation of the provisional registration. During the proceedings, the Ld.CIT(E) issued notice dated 30.01.2026 requiring the assessee to furnish the documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2). The assessee furnished its response along with the relevant details and documents. However, the Ld. CIT(E) observed that the application in Form No. 10AB had been filed beyond the prescribed period and proceeded to reject the application on the ground of delay. The Ld. CIT(E) further observed that the assessee had not demonstrated reasonable cause or genuine hardship for condonation of the delay. Finally, by order dated 21.03.2026, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for regularisation of provisional registration under section 12AB on account of late filing of Form No. 10AB.
The assessee had also filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 03.09.2025 seeking approval under section 80G(5). The said application was rejected consequentially on the ground that the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB had already been rejected. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. AR submitted that the applications were rejected primarily on the ground of delay without granting the assessee a specific and effective opportunity to explain the reasons for such delay and to seek its condonation. It was submitted that the notices issued during the proceedings were duly complied with and the information and documents called for were furnished. 16
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others The grievance raised in Ground No. 1 is specifically that no show-cause notice was issued calling upon the assessee to explain the delay or establish reasonable cause before the adverse finding on condonation was recorded.
The Ld. AR further submitted that the delay, if any, occurred on account of lack of awareness of the statutory requirement and absence of proper professional guidance regarding the time limit prescribed for filing Form No. 10AB. It was accordingly prayed that an opportunity be granted to place the explanation and supporting material before the Ld. CIT(E), and that the applications under sections 12AB and 80G be considered thereafter in accordance with law.
The Ld. DR argued & relied on order of the Ld. CIT(E).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short issue requiring our consideration at this stage is whether the applications could have been rejected on the ground of delay without granting the assessee a specific and effective opportunity to explain the delay and place its case for condonation before the Ld. CIT(E).It is evident from the impugned order that the assessee had responded to the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and had furnished the relevant details and documents. However, while dealing with the limitation aspect, the Ld. CIT(E) recorded that the assessee had not offered any comments or clarification regarding the delay and thereafter held that the assessee had failed to demonstrate reasonable cause or genuine hardship. On the other hand, the specific case of the assessee before us is that no show-cause notice calling upon it to explain the delay or to seek condonation thereof was issued before recording the aforesaid adverse finding.
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others 20. We further note that the CBDT, vide Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024, had extended the due date in specified categories for filing Form Nos. 10A/10AB after taking note of difficulties reported by taxpayers and stakeholders. The impugned order itself refers to the said Circular while considering the question of delay.
In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessee's explanation for delay or on its entitlement to registration/approval, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee to file its application/explanation for condonation of delay together with the supporting evidence, and thereafter to adjudicate the question of condonation in accordance with law in lenient approach. In the event the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(E) shall proceed to consider and decide the assessee's applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G on merits, in accordance with law, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion either on the sufficiency of the cause for delay or on the merits of the applications under sections 12AB and 80G, and all such issues are kept open for consideration by the Ld. CIT(E).
Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 7359/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others 23. In the result:- appeal wise decision is as below:-
Sl no Appeal No. Grounds of the Assessee 1 ITA7359-M-2026 Allowed for statistical purposes 2 ITA7430-M-2026 Allowed for statistical purposes 3 ITA7470-M-2026 Allowed 4 ITA7471-M-2026 Allowed 5 ITA7490-M-2026 Allowed for statistical purposes 6 ITA7630-M-2026 Allowed 7 ITA7631-M-2026 Allowed 8 ITA7638-M-2026 Allowed 9 ITA7639-M-2026 Allowed 10 ITA7668-M-2026 Allowed for statistical purposes 11 ITA7635-M-2026 Allowed 12 ITA7636-M-2026 Allowed 13 ITA7637-M-2026 Allowed 14 ITA7670-M-2026 Allowed for statistical purposes 15 ITA7684-M-2026 Allowed 16 ITA7685-M-2026 Allowed
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th day of September 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNA DASGUPTA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai,िदनांक �Dated: 24/09/2026
ITA Nos. 7359,7430,7470,7471,7490,7630,7631,7638,7639, 7668,7635,7636,7637,7670,7684,7485/MUM/2026 MISSION COMPASSION FOUNDATION& Others Saumya, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ� �The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी � The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध ,आय .अपी .अिध ,.मुंबई �DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल �Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
