MAA SIDHIDATRI SATOGURI DARBAR PRIVATE TRUST,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 676/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 October 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 82 days in filing the application for renewal of registration is condonable. The Tribunal took note of CBDT's Circular No. 1/2026 dated 23.03.2026, which clarifies that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has been entrusted with the power to condone delay following the insertion of the proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) w.e.f. 01.10.2024. The Board observed that eligible trusts or institutions should not be denied the benefit of registration solely on account of delay. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to condone the delay. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the application for renewal of registration afresh on its merits, in accordance with the law, after affording the assessee a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Maa Sidhidatri Satoguri Darbar Pvt. Trust, filed an application for renewal of registration before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow (CIT(E)) on 21.12.2025. This application was filed with a delay of approximately 82 days, as the due date for filing was 30.09.2025. The assessee attributed the delay to administrative oversight and a misunderstanding of the prescribed time limit, describing it as a bona fide and inadvertent lapse. The CIT(E), in its order dated 21.06.2026, rejected the assessee's application for renewal of registration primarily upon rejecting the assessee's prayer for condonation of the delay. The appeal is for Assessment Year 2026-27.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) read with the proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the CIT(E) has rejected the prayer for condonation. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was bona fide and inadvertent due to administrative oversight and misunderstanding of the time limit. They relied on CBDT Circular No. 1/2026 dated 23.03.2026, which clarifies that eligible trusts should not be denied registration solely on account of delay and that the PCIT has the power to condone delay. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(1)(b),Section 12A(1)(ac)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 12.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 676/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2026-27 Maa Sidhidatri Satoguri Darbar Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Pvt. Trust, Aayakar Bhawan, B-26, Indra Puri, New Agra, Sanjay Place, Agra-282002 Agra-282005 PAN: AAAAM0435A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 12.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 12.10.2026 ORDER PER:SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.06.2026 passed in appeal No CIT (Exemption), Lucknow/2025-26/12AA/30258 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (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. 2026-27, wherein ld CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application for renewal of registration upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay.

ITA No.676/Agr/2026 2. We have perused the records and heard both the parties. 3. At the very outset, before entering into the merits of the case, we notice that an application for the renewal of registration of assessee trust was filed before ld CIT(E) on 21.12.2025 by a delay of about 82 days. The ground taken by the assessee before the ld CIT(E) as per the impugned order is that the application could not be filed within time owing to administrative oversight and a misunderstanding of the prescribed time limit, the delay being described as a bona fide and inadvertent lapse.

4.

Appellant trust’s application for the renewal of registration was rejected upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for the condonation of delay of 82 days as the application was required to be made by 30.09.2025 whereas the application was filed on 21.12.2025. 5. We take notice of CBDT’s Circular No. 1/2026 dated 23.03.2026, which has clarified that consequent upon the insertion of proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) w.e.f. 01.10.2024, the PCIT has been entrusted the power to condone the delay and the Board has observed that the eligible trust or institutions should not be denied the benefit of registration solely on account of delay. In such circumstances, we deem it just and proper to condone the said delay and remit the matter back to the file of ld CIT(E) to decide the matter a fresh on merit in

2 | P a g e

ITA No.676/Agr/2026

accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The aforesaid issue is accordingly determined in positive in favour of the appellant assessee and against the respondent revenue. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order is set aside.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 12.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 12.10.2026

*Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 12AB(1)(b)

All 167 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →