CHANDRALOK FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

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.

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. Following appeals are taken as lead cases on basis of issues raised before the bench and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals.

The assessee has preferred the captioned appeals, inter alia, challenging the dispute arising on account of quoting an incorrect provision of the Act while filing the applications in Form No. 10AB. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is identical, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) issued a notice dated 31.01.2026 requiring the assessee to furnish the documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In response thereto, the assessee furnished its submission on 10.02.2026 along with the relevant details and documents. On examination thereof, the Ld. CIT(E) observed that, since the assessee was holding provisional registration, the application for regular registration ought to have been filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. However, while filing Form No. 10AB, the assessee had selected section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. On this ground alone, the Ld. CIT(E) treated the application as not maintainable and rejected the same vide order dated 21.02.2026.

The assessee had also filed a separate application in Form No. 10AB on 26.09.2025 seeking approval under section 80G of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) observed that the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB had already been rejected. Consequently, holding that the condition

The Ld. DR strongly relied upon the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee itself had filed the application in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, whereas, having regard to the provisional registration already granted to it, the appropriate provision applicable to its case was section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, no infirmity could be found in the action of the Ld. CIT(E) in rejecting the application filed under an incorrect statutory clause.

The Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Lodha Park Jain Sangh v. ITO (C), Circle 22(1), ITA No. 4679/Mum/2026, order dated 30.06.2026, wherein an identical issue relating to selection of section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in Form No. 10AB was considered, the Ld. DR left the matter to the discretion of the Bench in accordance with law. In Shri Lodha Park Jain Sangh (supra), the Revenue had relied upon the impugned order but had raised no objection to restoration of the matter to the Ld. CIT(E).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The limited controversy before us is whether the applications filed by the assessee could be rejected merely on account of quoting/selecting an incorrect statutory clause while filing Form No. 10AB. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was already granted provisional registration in Form No. 10AC dated 12.05.2022, valid from A.Y. 2023-24 to A.Y. 2025-26. The assessee thereafter filed Form No. 10AB seeking regular registration under section 12AB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) did not reject the application on account of any adverse finding regarding the objects of the trust or genuineness of its 9

We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Shri Lodha Park Jain Sangh (supra). In the said case also, the assessee, despite holding provisional registration, had selected section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) while filing Form No. 10AB. The Coordinate Bench observed that selection of an incorrect clause in the electronic form was a curable technical lapse and that the assessee ought to have been afforded an effective opportunity to rectify the defect instead of its application being rejected at the threshold.

The Coordinate Bench also considered CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 and observed that, though the time-specific relaxation contained therein did not in terms govern the application before it, the Circular recognised the principle that selection of a wrong section code in Form No. 10AB is a procedural defect which should not permanently defeat consideration of an otherwise maintainable application. Following the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Shri Lodha Park Jain Sangh (supra), we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB of the Act and restore the matter to his file. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to treat the assessee's Form No. 10AB filed on 18.09.2025 as an application under the appropriate provision, i.e., section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, while preserving its original date of filing, and thereafter examine the application afresh in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the objects of the assessee, genuineness of its activities, compliance with Rule 17A and other applicable statutory conditions after

As regards the assessee's application for approval under section 80G of the Act, we find that the same was rejected consequentially on account of rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB. The impugned 80G order itself records this as the basis for rejection. Since the order relating to registration under section 12AB has been set aside for fresh adjudication, the consequential order rejecting approval under section 80G also requires fresh consideration. Accordingly, the said order is also set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, after deciding the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We make it clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the assessee's entitlement either to registration under section 12AB or to approval under section 80G of the Act, and all substantive issues are left open for examination by the Ld. CIT(E).

The assessee has preferred the captioned appeals, inter alia, challenging the dispute arising on account of delay on filing the applications in Form No. 10AB. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is identical, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

The assessee had granted the final of registration u/s 12AB by the order dated 15.12.2025 for the period 2022-23 to 2026-27. Also the assessee had granted the final registration u/s 12AB by the order dated 24.06.2026 for AY 2027-28 to 2036-2037.

The Ld. AR argued filed two sets of paper books comprising pages 1 to 91 & pages 1 to 89 which have been placed on record. The Ld. AR submitted that the application was 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

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). The assessee had demonstrated reasonable cause and genuine hardship for filing application beyond the limitation.

We find that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 recognised the difficulties faced by trusts/institutions in filing applications in Form No. 10A/10AB and extended the prescribed time, for the categories specified therein, up to 30.06.2024. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the remedial approach reflected in the aforesaid Circular, the issue relating to delay requires examination by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to consider the assessee's prayer for condonation of delay in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the reasons and supporting material furnished by the assessee.

The Ld. CIT(E), being the competent authority to consider the request for condonation to the extent permissible under the applicable provisions, shall examine whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated for the delay and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. In the event the

The assessee has preferred the captioned appeals, inter alia, challenging the dispute arising on account of non-compliance of notice before the Ld. CIT(E). Since the issue involved in all these appeals is identical, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

The Ld. AR argued and claimed that the assessee filed the requisite documents though email to the Ld. CIT(E). the Ld. AR filed paper book comprising pages 1 to 96 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee is already registered since 31.03.1954. The copy of the registration certificate is annexed in APB page 27. The Ld. AR further argued that without allowing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(E) had passed the order, which is violation of natural justice.

The Ld. DR argued and stands in favor of the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

In our considered view, we find that the assessee had already been granted registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act vide order dated 24.09.2021. A copy of the said registration order is duly placed at APB pages 28 to 30. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) issued a notice under Rule 17A(2) of the Rules dated 12.05.2026 & reminder notice dated 04.06.2026. However, without granting any further opportunity of hearing, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for renewal of registration.

We find that the assessee was not afforded an adequate and reasonable opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(E). Considering the principles of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Needless to say, the assessee shall also remain

The assessee has preferred the captioned appeals against two separate orders, both dated 13.07.2026, passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Mumbai under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the assessee's applications seeking condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B for A.Y. 2017-18 were rejected. The assessee had filed an application dated 22.10.2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Statement of Accumulation in Form No. 10 for A.Y. 2017-18. The due date for filing the said Form was 07.11.2017, whereas the same was furnished on 26.03.2019, resulting in a delay of 504 days. The assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 02.04.2024 under section 139(4A), in response to proceedings initiated under section 148.

Similarly, the assessee filed an application dated 22.10.2024 seeking condonation of delay in furnishing the audit report in Form No. 10B for A.Y. 2017-18. The specified date for furnishing the audit report was 07.11.2017, whereas Form No. 10B was furnished on 26.03.2019. Thus, in this case also, there was a delay of 504 days. In support of the applications for condonation, the assessee explained that after the election of a new Managing Committee on 18.09.2016, certain members of the erstwhile Managing Committee disputed the election before the Charity Commissioner. It was further stated that the erstwhile office-bearers requested the banks not to recognise the new 16

The Ld. CIT(E), however, was not satisfied with the explanation. It was, inter alia, observed that the dispute between the members of the Managing Committee was an internal management dispute which did not dispense with the statutory obligations under the Act; that adequate material was not produced to establish complete inaccessibility of the financial records; and that the assessee had continued its charitable activities and incurred expenditure during the relevant period. The Ld. CIT(E) further noted that the return for A.Y. 2017-18 was ultimately filed only on 02.04.2024 pursuant to reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(E), exercising the delegated authority under section 119(2)(b), declined to condone the delay in filing Forms No. 10 and 10B. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee has preferred the present appeals before the Tribunal.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before entering into the merits of the reasons advanced by the assessee for the delay in filing Forms No. 10 and 10B, it is necessary to first examine whether the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act are appealable before this Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Section 253(1) specifically enumerates the orders against which an assessee aggrieved may prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. The provision, inter alia, covers specified orders passed by the Principal Commissioner or

In the present case, the impugned orders are not orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) under section 12AB or section 80G. The subject matter of the impugned proceedings is confined to the assessee's applications seeking condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) in filing Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B. Indeed, the orders themselves expressly record that they are orders rejecting condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal is governed by section 253 of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision providing an appeal before the Tribunal against an order passed under section 119(2)(b), the merits of the decision of the Ld. CIT(E), including whether sufficient or reasonable cause existed for condonation of the delay of 504 days, cannot be examined in the present appellate proceedings.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessee's explanation for the delay or on the correctness of the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) while disposing of the applications under section 119(2)(b), we hold that the impugned orders are not appealable before the Tribunal under section 253 of the Act. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee are not maintainable and are, accordingly, dismissed as non- maintainable.

In the result:- appeal wise decision is as below:-