SRIMANTHI KANTHIMATHI KUMARASWAMI MUDALIAR KALYANAMANDAPAM TRUST,CHITTOOR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application for registration. It was noted that the trust was established long before Section 12AB was enacted, making compliance with the timeline impossible. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' (the law does not compel a man to do that which cannot possibly be performed).
What were the facts?
The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the application on the grounds that it was filed belatedly, beyond the prescribed six-month period from the commencement of activities.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB solely on the grounds of belated filing, considering the historical establishment of the trust and the principle of impossibility of performance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(13)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- K.P. Varghese v. ITO989 citing131 ITR 597 · 1981 · SC
- Krishnaswamy S. Pd v. Union of India68 citing281 ITR 305 · 2006 · SC
- Pr. CIT v. Aarham Softronics40 citing412 ITR 623 · 2019 · SC · Read judgment
- Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. ITO27 citing245 ITR 538 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Revathi Equipment Limited22 citing298 ITR 67 · 2008 · HC
- R & B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd. v. CIT18 citing301 ITR 309 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- Delhi (JT 1996 (2) (xviii) SC 670. 678) Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil17 citing219 ITR 410 · 1996 · SC
- Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar15 citing11 SCC 447 · 2007 · SC
- Tanna And Modi v. CIT (SC)10 citing292 ITR 209 · SC
- Presidential Poll v. Unknown on 5 June7 citing2 SCC 33 · 1974
- State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh7 citing7 SCC 639 · 2011
- Amritsar to Delhi. In K. P. Mohammed Salim v. CIT3 citing300 ITR 302 · 2008 · SC
- 3 citing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad DB-B Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Srimanthi Kanthimathi Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Kumaraswamy Mudaliar Hyderabad Kalyanamandapam Trust, Chittoor PAN:ABDTS060C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri A Mahesh, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13/03/2025 of the learned CIT (Exemptions), for the A.Y.2025-26 whereby the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12A of the Act is rejected.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee Trust was formed and commenced its activities in the year 1978, however, the assessee applied for registration u/s 12A which was granted as provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee applied for regular registration u/s 12AB of the Act which was rejected by the CIT (Exemptions) on the ground that the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB is barred by limitation. The learned AR has pointed out that Page 4 of 10 when the assessee has already commenced its activities in the year 1978, then the computation of limitation within 6 months from the date of commencement of the activities is highly unjustified and invalid. He has submitted that the provisional registration was granted from the A.Y 2023-24 to 2025-26 and therefore, the application filed by the assessee for regular registration on 17/09/2024 is within the period of limitation by considering the expiry of the provisional registration on 31/03/2025. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal dated 2/7/2025 in the case of Shri Shiva Kiran Charitable Trust vs. CIT (Exemptions) in 2025. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT (Exemptions) is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT (Exemptions).
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee was granted the provisional registration on 1/9/2022 valid from A.Y 2023-24 to A.Y 2025-26. Thereafter, the assessee filed the application in Form 10AB for regular registration u/s 12AB on 17/09/2024 which was rejected by the CIT (Exemptions) as under:
Thus, the CIT (Exemptions) has held that the application filed by the assessee is beyond the time limit and referred to CBDT Circular No.7/2024 whereby the time limit was extended up to 30/06/2024. It is pertinent to note that when the assessee came into existence and commenced its activities in the year 1978, then the limitation for filing the application in Form 10AB for regular registration u/s 12AB is to be considered in the context of the expiry of the provisional registration and not in the context of the commencement of the activities of the assessee. We further note that the assessee has filed the financial statements before the CIT (Exemptions) showing the existence and Page 6 of 10 commencement of the activities of the assessee prior to the grant of provisional registration. An identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in case of Shiv Kiran Charitable Trust vs. CIT (Exemptions) in dated 2/7/2025 and in paras 5 and 6 held as under:
Accordingly, by considering the validity of the provisional registration in the case of the assessee up to 31/03/2025, the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB for regular registration on 17/09/2024 is well within the period of limitation, being six months before the expiry of provisional registration. Further, the CBDT Circular as referred by the CIT (Exemptions) is also not relevant in the case of the assessee where the provisional registration was granted from the A.Y 2023-24 to 2025-26. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the earlier order of this Tribunal cited (Supra), the impugned order of the CIT (Exemptions) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT (Exemptions) for reconsideration of the application of the assessee for grant of regular registration u/s 12AB of the I.T Act on merit by considering all the relevant facts, details as well as record. We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026