RACHANA SANSAD,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6260/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2026AY 2027-2815 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in his observation regarding the commencement of activities and the calculation of delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 192 days in filing Form No. 10AB, finding that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay, supported by FIRs and trustee affidavits. Regarding the objects of the trust, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s apprehension that the assessee was spending beyond territorial limits was based on clauses providing for scholarships and publications. However, the assessee clarified that no such expenditure or publication occurred outside India. The Tribunal opined that whether the assessee incurred expenditure beyond the objects and if such expenditure could be allowed under Section 11 is a matter for the Assessing Officer during assessment. The Tribunal found no reason to deny registration under Section 12AB, especially since the trust had been granted registration in 1976 on the same objects, and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration from AY 2026-27. Consequently, the appeal regarding Section 80G approval was restored to the CIT(E) for decision on merits, and the appeal related to the denial of registration was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rachana Sansad, filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 2020, 6260, and 6261 of 2026) against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) ('CIT(E)') denying registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a public charitable trust established in 1960, had previously obtained registration under Section 12A in 1976 and exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). It later applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) which was granted, and then surrendered. Subsequently, it obtained provisional approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) for AY 2023-24 to 2025-26. The current appeals arise from the denial of regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G, primarily due to a delay in filing the application for regularization of provisional registration and concerns about the trust's objects extending beyond India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had the power to condone the delay of 192 days in filing the application for regularization of provisional registration under Section 12AB(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if so, whether the delay was justified. - Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to auditors not informing them about the filing deadline and issues related to regularizing TDS payments due to fraud by accounting staff, supported by an FIR. They contended that the CIT(E) erred in not appreciating the reasonable cause for the delay and that the CIT(E) had the power to condone it. - Revenue's Contention: The Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of the CIT(E). 2. Whether the objects of the trust, as stated in clauses (d) and (h) of the Trust Deed, were inconsistent with and in violation of the statutory mandate prescribed under Section 11 of the Act, thereby warranting rejection of the application for registration. - Assessee's Contention: The assessee clarified that no payments were made to students outside India and no publications were made abroad. They argued that the CIT(E) did not question the genuineness of the objects except for these two clauses and that the trust had been granted registration in 1976 on the same objects. - Revenue's Contention: The Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of the CIT(E).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 11,Section 10(23C)(vi),Section 12A(1)(ac)(i),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, CIT-DR
Pronounced: 08/10/2026

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA 2020/MUM/2026
ITA 6260/MUM/2026
ITA 6261/MUM/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) in denying registration u/s. 12AB and approval u/s. 80G o

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 →