SHRI BRAJSHIROMANI LAXMANDAS SEWA TRUST,VRINDAVAN MATHURA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MATHURA

ITA 592/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 October 2026AY 2026-20274 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for renewal of registration solely on the ground of delay. The Tribunal took note of CBDT Circular No. 1/2026 dated 23.03.2026, which clarifies that the Principal Commissioner has the power to condone delays and that eligible trusts should not be denied registration benefits solely due to delay. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to condone the delay of 369 days. The matter was remitted back to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh on merits, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal concerning Section 80G(5) registration was also remitted as it was consequential to the Section 12AB registration. The issue regarding the rejection of the application on grounds of delay was decided in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust, filed an appeal against an order dated 28.06.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) read with the proviso to clause 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2026-27. This rejection was primarily due to the delay in filing the application. The assessee's application for condonation of this delay was also rejected. The appeal before the ITAT was filed against this order of the CIT(E). The procedural history involves the assessee filing an application for renewal of registration with a delay of approximately 369 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for renewal of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act solely on the ground of delay, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for renewal of registration merely on the ground of delay and that an adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided. The delay was attributed to the ill health of the trust's President, supported by medical papers. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Deependra Mohan, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost identical, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 592/Agr/2026 are only being narrated as under.

2.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.06.2026 passed in appeal No CIT (Exemption), Lucknow/2025-26/12AA/28529 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA No.592 & 591/Agr/2026 (Exemption) Lucknow, [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(E)] u/s. 12AB(1)(b) r/w proviso to clause 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →