TEJAS EDUCATIONAL & MEDICAL TRUST,AGRA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 634/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 October 2026AY 2025-266 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application by not condoning a delay of 46 days in filing the application, without adjudicating the application on its merits. The Tribunal took note of CBDT Circular No. 1/2026 dated 23.03.2026, which clarifies that the CIT(E) has the power to condone delays under the proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) and that eligible trusts should not be denied registration solely on account of delay. The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation for the delay to be reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh on its merits after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Tejas Educational & Medical Trust, filed an appeal against an order dated 22.06.2026 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that it was filed beyond the statutory time limit. The assessee had provisionally registered from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27 and was required to file the application in Form 10AB by 30.09.2025, six months prior to the expiry of its provisional registration on 31.03.2026. The application was filed on 15.11.2025, resulting in a delay of 46 days. The CIT(E) found no reasonable cause for this delay and rejected the application as non-maintainable, without examining the merits of the assessee's activities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A solely on the ground of a delayed filing, without affording sufficient opportunity and without considering the merits of the assessee's activities? 2. Whether the CIT(E) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the application, given that the delay was allegedly due to the medical illness of the person in charge, which was beyond the appellant's control? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the rejection was based solely on the delayed application, despite the fact that the activities carried out are educational and have been conducted for previous periods. The delay of 46 days was attributed to the medical illness of Mr. Narendra Pal Singh, the person in charge, who was on bed rest from 15.09.2025 to 10.11.2025, as supported by a medical certificate. The delay was unintentional and beyond the appellant's control. The assessee prayed for condonation of the delay and for the matter to be set aside to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, represented by the CIT DR, supported the order of the CIT(E).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA(DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGHBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rohti Singhal, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT DR
Hearing: 17.09.2026Pronounced: 17.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA(DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 634/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2025-26 Tejas Educational & Medical Trust, Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), 50/164, Sidh Sahani Nagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Agra- Shahganj, Agra-282010 282002 PAN: AADTT8922H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rohti Singhal, CA. Department by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT DR Date of hearing 17.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.09.2026 ORDER PER: BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.06.2026 passed in appeal No CIT Exemption, Lucknow/2025- 26/12AA/29508 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”), wherein ld. CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application on the ground being beyond statutory time limit.

ITA No.634/Agr/2026 2. In this case the adjournment application filed by the assessee was rejected as not pressed.

3.

The facts in brief are that the appellant assessee filed an online application in Form no. 10 AB for the purpose of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act on 15.11.2025. The appellant was provisionally registered vide order dated 28.06.2024 from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27. The Ld. CIT(E) noted that the appellant was required to file the application in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act by 30.09.2025 being 06 months prior to expiry of the registration on 31.03.2026. However, the Ld. CIT (E) noted that the application in form 10AB was filed on 15.11.2025 and thus there was a delay of 46 days in filing the said application. The Ld. CIT(E) noted that the appellant had not put forth any cause, much less reasonable cause, to explain the delay caused in filing the instant application. The Ld. CIT (E) further noted that the standard prescribed by the statute for condonation in the case of applications filed under section 12A(1)(ac) is that of reasonable and the burden of demonstrating such reasonable cause lay upon the applicant. In this regard, relevant extract of the impugned order is reproduced as under :

2 | P a g e

ITA No.634/Agr/2026 “CONCLUSION & ORDER 21. To gather the conclusions reached- (a) The power to condone as conferred by the proviso to clause (ac), is exercisable only upon the formation of a satisfaction that reasonable cause exists; (b) The burden of establishing reasonable cause for the delay lay upon the applicant, which has not been discharged at all in the present case; (c) The standard of reasonable cause, though more liberal than that of sufficient cause, is an objective standard that fastens upon whether the applicant acted as a person of ordinary prudence and diligence would have acted. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant had acted with such prudence and diligence. (d) In complete absence of a petition showing reasonable cause for condonation of delay, discretion cannot operate. 22. Having considered the material on record, the extent of the delay, the opportunities afforded, and the statutory and jurisprudential framework set out above, the undersigned is satisfied that the applicant has grossly failed in showing reasonable cause justifying the condonation of delay. In the result, the application in Form No. 10AB is held to be barred by limitation and is rejected as non-maintainable. 23. It is clarified that this order proceeds solely upon the question of limitation, and contains no finding upon the genuineness of the applicant's activities or its entitlement to registration on the merits, which questions have not been examined and do not arise for decision. 24. Ordered according.” 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred in law and fact to reject the application for registration u/s 12A, without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant and the rejection merely on account of delayed application. 2. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred in law and fact to pass the order refusing the registration u/s 12A merely on the ground of delayed application without drawing any adverse inference in the activities carried out. 3 | P a g e

ITA No.634/Agr/2026 3. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay and in rejecting the application on the ground of delay, without appreciating that the person in charge was suffering from medical illness, due to the illness, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application, even though the activities carried out by the appellant society are educational in nature and have been carried out by the society for previous periods. 5. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred in law and fact to reject the application whereas the appellant has duly registered u/s 12A with previous period. 6. That any other relief or relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR referred to the condonation application explaining the reasons for the delay of 46 days in filing the said application before the Ld. CIT(E), which is reproduced as under: “We would like to submit before your honour that the Ld. CIT(E) Lucknow, has rejected appellant application for renewal of registration seeking u/s 12A of the Act, vide order dated 22.06.2026. The Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application solely on the ground of delayed filing of application in Form 10AB for granting 12A registration. The appellant has filed an application for 12A on 15.11.2025, whereas it should be filed on or before 30.09.2025. Hence, there was a delay of 46 days. However, the delay was on account of reasonable cause as the person in charge, Mr. Narendra Pal Singh of the appellant trust has suffered from medical illness and on complete bed rest at the prescription given by the doctor for the period 15.09.2025 to 10.11.2025. Copy of medical certificate enclosed herewith. Hence, the appellant has filed delayed application which was unintentional and beyond the control of the appellant. Therefore, we humbly pray to kindly condon such delay in filing of registration application in Form 10AB.”

4 | P a g e

ITA No.634/Agr/2026 5.1 The Ld. AR submitted due to the above facts the delay occurred and requested that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT (E) for deciding the application on its merits.

6.

On the other hand, the Ld. CIT DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(E).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As noted above, the Ld. CIT (E) rejected the application of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 46 days in filing the application under consideration. The Ld. CIT (E) did not adjudicate the application of the assessee on merits. In this regard, 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 Ld. CIT(E) 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. The explanation of the assessee for the delay is considered reasonable by us. 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 afresh on merit in accordance

5 | P a g e

ITA No.634/Agr/2026 with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 17.09.2026

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

Dated: 26.10.2026 *aks Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

6 | P a g e

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

All 537 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →