SHRI MARUTI MANDIR JIRNODHAR SAMITI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXAMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4778/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the applications were not decided on merits, with the regularization application being rejected solely on account of delay, and the 80G application being rejected as a consequence. The Tribunal found that the appellant, an old trust, had provided a reason for the delay (Chartered Accountant's relocation) which, in matters where parties rely on expert services, cannot be considered unacceptable. It was noted that there is no presumption of intentional delay, and the CIT(Exemptions) has the power to condone delay in appropriate cases upon sufficient cause. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had made out a case for condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the applications was condoned, and the impugned orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside. Both applications were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for decision on their own merits. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Shri Maruti Mandir Jirnodhar Samiti, a religious trust, filed applications in Form 10AB for regularization of its registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application for regularization due to a delay of thirty months, as it was filed on September 30, 2025, instead of by the end of March 2023. The reason provided for the delay, that the Chartered Accountant was relocating, was not accepted. Consequently, the application for 80G approval was also rejected. The assessment year in question is 2026-27. The appeals are filed against the orders of the CIT(Exemptions).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the application for regularization of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if so, whether the delay of thirty months in this case is justifiable on the grounds provided by the assessee. 2. Whether the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable, given that it was rejected primarily due to the rejection of the Section 12A registration. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the applications occurred because the Chartered Accountant responsible was in the process of relocating to Tamil Nadu. They contended that this reason, in matters involving reliance on experts, cannot be deemed unacceptable, and that there is no presumption of intentional delay. The assessee also pointed out that the CIT(Exemptions) has the authority to condone delay in appropriate cases upon sufficient cause being shown, and that the delay in this case should be condoned. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue's side, other than implicitly through the CIT(Exemptions)'s order rejecting the applications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12AB,Section 80G(5)(iv)(B),Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri R L Rathi
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath- CIT DR
Hearing: 29.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, President:

Both these appeals can be disposed off on short count.

2.

The appellant is a religious trust. The appellant filed application in Form 10AB u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) seeking regularization of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). The learned CIT(Exemption) has observed that the application was not complete hence notice dated 31.01.2026 was issued asking the appellant to furnish certain documents as mentioned in Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax 1962 (‘Rules’ for short). In response thereto, the appellant filed its submissions on 11.02.2026 and furnished the relevant details and documents.

ITA Nos.4778 & 4779/Mum/2026 Maruti Mandir Jirnodhar Samiti

3.

The learned CIT(Exemptions) however, has found that the application was not filed within time. He observed that the application for regularization of provisional registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, whereunder Trust or institution which has been provisionally registered u/s. 12AB has to seek regularization at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional registration or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. The CIT(Exemptions) has found that the appellant ought to have filed its application latest by the end of March, 2023. Thus, there was a delay of thirty months as it was filed on 30th September, 2025.

4.

Further, the reasons shown for the delay that the Chartered Accountant was in the process of relocation to Tamil Nadu has not been accepted.

5.

The appellant has also filed an application in Form 10AB u/s. 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Act seeking approval u/s. 80G of the Act., which has also been rejected. The application has been rejected on 17.02.2026 principally on account of rejection of registration us/. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.

6.

We have heard parties. Perused record.

7.

It can be seen that none of the applications have been decided on merits. The application seeking regularization of registration has been rejected on account of delay and the application for approval u/s. 80G has been rejected as a consequence thereof.

8.

It is pointed out by learned AR that the appellant is an old Trust and the delay occurred because the concerned Chartered Accountant was in the process

ITA Nos.4778 & 4779/Mum/2026 Maruti Mandir Jirnodhar Samiti of relocating to Tamil Nadu. In maters of the present nature the parties/trustees rely upon the services rendered by an expert and, thus, the reason shown cannot be said to be unacceptable. It is trite that there is no presumption that the delay is intentional and the party does not stand to gain by approaching the authorities late. It is not disputed that in appropriate case, the learned CIT(Exemptions) has authority and power to condone the delay. Thus, although the period within which the application has to made is sacrosanct and is required to be adhered to, the legislature, in its wisdom, has made provision for condonation of delay, albeit only in appropriate cases and upon sufficient cause being shown. The latter aspect is essentially a question of fact, to be determined having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In the given circumstances, we find that the appellant has made out a case for condonation of delay in filing the application. Thus, the delay in filing the application/s is hereby condoned. The impugned orders are thus set aside.

9.

Both the applications are restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for deciding them on their own merits and in accordance with law. Both the appeals are disposed off in aforesaid terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th September, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- [Prabhash Shankar] [Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT Mumbai, Dated : 29th September, 2026 SA

ITA Nos.4778 & 4779/Mum/2026 Maruti Mandir Jirnodhar Samiti

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT, Mumbai. 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ‘G’ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

All 1,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →