← Back to search

CHETANA ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

PDF
ITA 1812/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 20256 pages

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Chetana, Survey No. 341, Chetana College, Government Colony, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Vs. CIT (Exemptions), 601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. PAN NO. AAATC 3012 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish A. Thakurdesai
For Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Hearing: 10/06/2025Pronounced: 10/07/2025

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(E)’] rejecting the application of the assessee for registration u/s 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

We have heard th the material available the assessee, a tru Section 10(23C) of th as "the Act"), vide Fo Years 2022–23 to 2 proviso to sub-section was required to sub provisional approva commencement of its expiry of the prov According to the lear the application f Subsequently, the Ce Circular No. 7/2024 filing such applicatio However, the assesse Section 10(23C) on While the CIT(E) n adequate documenta objects, the applicati ground of being n relevant observation “6. Thus, the in Form 10A e rival submissions of the parti e on record. The brief facts of th ust, was granted provisional a he Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein orm No. 10AC for a period cover 2024–25. In terms of clause n (5) of Section 10(23C) of the A bmit an application for regular al either within six mont s activities or at least six mon visional registration, whicheve rned CIT(E)", the assessee was for regularisation by Sep entral Board of Direct Taxes (CB dated 25.04.2024, extended t on to 30.06.2024, subject to cer ee filed the application for regul 21.08.2024—i.e., after the ext noted that the assessee had ary proof regarding its activities ion was ultimately rejected on on-maintainable due to delay of the Ld. CIT(E) is reproduced a application for regularization of provision AB filed by the assessee is not allowa Chetana 2 ies and perused he case are that approval under nafter referred to ring Assessment (iii) of the first Act, the assessee risation of such ths from the nths prior to the er was earlier. obligated to file ptember 2023. BDT), by way of he due date for rtain conditions. larisation under tended timeline. not furnished s, expenses, and the preliminary yed filing. The as under: nal approval able on the ground of late application is 2.1 Before us, learn the order of the Coo Amba Shanti Found wherein under subs filing the applicatio Tribunal. The Tribun date for filing Form 30.06.2024, and th application on 24.07 not fatal in nature. P Delhi High Court in Jagriti Mission [(201 reiterated the settled namely, that justice technical or procedu deliberate default is Shanti Foundation (su extending the due d opportunity to app facilitative approach. observed as under: “6. We have available on r whether the e filing of application. For statistical pur non-maintainable and stands rejected.” ned counsel for the assessee pla ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dation in ITA Nos. 1862 & 18 stantially similar circumstance on for regularisation was con nal in that case observed that th 10AB, as per CBDT Circular N hough the assessee therein .2024 with a delay of 23 days, Placing reliance on the decision n Director of Income-tax (Exemp 3) 30 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi d principles governing condona should not be defeated on acc ural lapse, particularly where n established. The Coordinate B upra) further observed that the date reflects a legislative intent licants and is indicative of .The relevant finding of the Trib heard the rival submissions and peruse record. The only moot issue that requires assessee is entitled to registration u/s. Chetana 3 rposes, this ” aced reliance on l in the case of 863/Mum/2025, s, the delay in ndoned by the he extended due No. 7/2024, was had filed the such delay was n of the Hon’ble ption) v. Vishwa )], the Tribunal ation of delay— count of a mere no mala fides or Bench in Amba CBDT’s circular t to offer a fair a liberal and bunal (supra) is d the materials adjudication is . 12A after the specified due application in for filing for 25.04.2024 w had filed form the applicatio observed that the Hon’ble H of condoning 10AB. We wo Delhi High Co Vishwa Jagri Taxman 65 (D after consider are to be tak hereby extrac reference: “22. The follo principles wh condonation o "And such a l that: 1. Ordi appeal 2. Refu being being d highes merits 3. "Eve pedant delay, rationa 4. Whe pitted deserv have v deliber 5. Th deliber e date and also the extended due date n form 10AB. It is observed that the exte rm 10AB as per CBDT circular no. 0 was 30.06.2024, where the assessee c m 10AB on 24.07.2024 with a delay of 2 on for regularization of registration u/ t there is a catena of decision of the Tribu High Courts where a liberal view has bee the delay in filing application for regis ould place our reliance on the decision ourt in the case of Director of Income-tax ti Mission [2013] 30 taxmann.com 41 (De (Delhi)/[2014] 268 CTR 444 (Delhi)[21-12 ring various decisions had laid down the ken into consideration for condoning s ct the relevant portion of the said ord owing general principles were laid down hich guide the Court in approaching t of delay: - liberal approach is adopted on principle a inarily, a litigant does not stand to benefi l late. using to condone delay can result in a me thrown out at the very threshold and c defeated. As against this, when delay is t that can happen is that a cause would after hearing the parties. ery day's delay must be explained" does n tic approach should be made. Why no every second's delay? The doctrine must al, common sense and pragmatic manner. en substantial justice and technical con against each other, the cause of sub ves to be preferred, for the other side c vested right in injustice being done bec rate delay. ere is no presumption that delay rately, or on account of culpable neg Chetana 4 te, for filing an ended due date 07/2024 dated contends that it 23 days in filing /s. 12AB. It is unal as well as n taken in case stration in form of the Hon’ble (Exemption) vs. elhi)/[2013] 213 2-2012], where e principles that such delay. We der for ease of and it is these the question of as it is realized fit by lodging an eritorious matter cause of justice s condoned, the d be decided on not mean that a ot every hour's t be applied in a . nsiderations are bstantial justice cannot claim to ause of a non- is occasioned gligence, or on accoun resortin 6. It m accoun but bec to do s 7. From the a held that a l delay which which if foun Even otherwis 07/2024 is a opportunity t 30.06.2024, w time limit pres 8. From the a with one mor regularisation the ld. CIT(E) being filed on application on 2.2 In the present ca considered in Amb following the ratio lai procedural delay sh absence of mala fide take a liberal view in appropriate to condo regularisation of prov Act. The impugned o set aside. The matte with a direction to tr nt of mala fides. A litigant does not stan ng to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk must be grasped that the judiciary is re nt of its power to legalize injustice on tec cause it is capable of removing injustice a so." above, it can be inferred that the Hon’ble liberal view has to be taken in case of according to the said decision is a me d genuine has to be decided in favour of se, the extended due date by the board v also evident that the intention was to pr to the applicant trust for filing the which rather has not adhered strictly to scribed by the Act. above observation, we deem it fit to exten re opportunity to file the application in n of provisional approval granted to the a ). The ld. CIT(E) is directed to treat the n time without any delay and to decide n the merits and in accordance with law.” ase, the factual matrix is pari ba Shanti Foundation (supra id down therein, and applying th hould not defeat substantive conduct or gross negligence, we n the matter. Accordingly, we d one the delay in the filing of the visional approval under Section rder passed by the learned CIT er is restored to the file of the reat the assessee’s application Chetana 5 nd to benefit by k. espected not on chnical grounds and is expected High Court has f condoning the ere technicality of the assessee. vide circular no. rovide one more application till o the stipulated nd the assessee form 10AB for assessee, before application as the assessee’s ” materia to that a). Respectfully he principle that rights in the e are inclined to deem it just and e application for n 10(23C) of the (E) is, therefore, e learned CIT(E) as having been filed within the presc merits and in accorda 3. In the result, t statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 10/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

cribed time and to consider the ance with law.
he appeal filed by the assesse ced in the open Court on 10/0
d/-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Chetana
6
same afresh on e is allowed for 07/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai

CHETANA ,MUMBAI vs CIT(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI | BharatTax