Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable trust, filed an application for regular approval under section 80G(5) beyond the prescribed timeline due to a bona fide misunderstanding of the validity period of its provisional approval. The CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of delay, without addressing the status of the existing approval and the bona fide explanation for the delay, was a mechanical approach and contrary to the beneficial object of the law. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's delay arose from genuine confusion during the transition to a new regime.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of an application for 80G approval solely on the technical ground of delay, despite a bona fide explanation and the existence of a prior approval, is sustainable?
Sections Cited
80G(5), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE& SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR
आदेश / ORDER
PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR,AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee trust against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(E)”], dated 30.08.2025, whereby the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking approval under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] was rejected.
The assessee is a charitable trust engaged in educational and charitable activities. The trust is registered under section 12A of the Act and such registration is valid up to A.Y. 2026–27. The assessee was also granted provisional approval under section 80G(5) of the Act in Form No.10AC vide order dated 31.12.2022, which was valid up to A.Y. 2025–26.
In terms of the amended provisions of section 80G(5), the assessee was required to file an application in Form No.10AB for conversion of provisional approval into regular approval within the time prescribed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act.
The assessee filed its application in Form No.10AB on 28.03.2025 seeking regular approval under section 80G(5). During the course of proceedings, the learned CIT(E) issued notices calling for information and also raised an objection that the application was filed beyond the period prescribed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). The assessee, in response, admitted that there was a delay in filing Form No.10AB and submitted that such delay occurred due to a bona fide misunderstanding regarding the validity period of the provisional approval under section 80G(5), which was mistakenly presumed to be co-terminus with the validity of registration under section 12A, i.e. up to A.Y. 2026–27.
Trimurti Educational Charitable Trust 5. The learned CIT(E), after considering the submissions, held that filing of Form No.10AB within the prescribed time limit is a mandatory statutory requirement and that there is no power vested in the Commissioner to condone the delay. Holding that the assessee ought to have filed the application within six months from the date of provisional approval or at least six months prior to its expiry, and noting that even the extended timelines provided under CBDT Circular No.7/2024 had expired on 30.06.2024, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB without going into the merits.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. “That the learned CIT(Exemption) erred in law and on facts by rejecting the appellant's application for final approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), solely on the technical ground of delay in filing form 10AB, thereby failing to appreciate that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate.
2. That the learned CIT(Exemption) ought to have appreciated that the delay in filing the application for final approval was due to a bona fide and inadvertent mistake on the part of the appellant in correctly interpreting the validity period of the provisional registration, believing it to be valid until AY 2026-27 instead of the actual expiry date related to AY 2025-26. The trust is registered u/s 12A having validity till AY 2026-27 and the same is misunderstood by the appellant that provisional approval u/s 80G(5) is also valid till AY 2026-27. The appellant prays for the condonation of delay under the principle of 'sufficient cause', as the oversight was technical and no male fide intent to circumvent the law existed.
3. That the learned CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the principle of substantive justice over technicalities, which is paramount in the case of charitable organizations. The Tribunal is requested to adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach and condone the technical delay, thereby allowing the application to be decided on its merits and not on a procedural lapse.
4. That the learned CIT(Exemption) failed to consider that the appellant trust is otherwise eligible for the grant of final 80G approval, as it Trimurti Educational Charitable Trust has substantially complied with all the statutory and regulatory requirements and its activities are genuinely charitable, as evidenced by its accounts and activities during the provisional approval period.The Tribunal should direct the CIT(Exemption) to examine the application on merits rather than rejecting it solely on the ground of delay.
Your appellant prays for permission to add to, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal
at any time prior to the hearing of the appeal.”
7. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative reiterated the facts and submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Amrut Public Charitable Trust (ITA No.7387/MUM/2025 dated 19.01.2026), wherein on identical facts, rejection of an application under section 80G(5) solely on the ground of delay in filing Form No.10AB was held to be unsustainable.
8. It was submitted that, as in the present case, the assessee in the said decision was holding registration under section 12A valid up to A.Y. 2026–27 and provisional approval under section 80G(5) valid only up to A.Y. 2025–26, leading to bona fide confusion regarding timelines under the new charitable registration regime. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide and that the rejection was made purely on a technical ground without any adverse finding on charitable objects or activities.
The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the learned CIT(E).
Trimurti Educational Charitable Trust 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was granted registration under section 12A valid up to A.Y. 2026–27 and provisional approval under section 80G(5) in Form No.10AC valid up to A.Y. 2025–26. It is also undisputed that the application for regular approval under section 80G(5) in Form No.10AB was filed on 28.03.2025 and that the same has been rejected solely on the ground of delay, without entering into the merits of the assessee’s eligibility or the genuineness of its charitable activities.
We find that the factual matrix of the present case is identical to that considered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Amrut Public Charitable Trust (supra). In that case also, the rejection of the application under section 80G(5) was made exclusively on the ground of delay in filing Form No.10AB, arising out of bona fide confusion caused by different terminal years of validity of approvals granted under section 12A and section 80G(5) under the transition regime.
In the present case also, there is no dispute with regard to the charitable nature of the assessee’s objects or the genuineness of its activities. The rejection has been made purely on a procedural ground. We further note that the assessee continues to hold valid registration under section 12A, which itself indicates acceptance of the charitable character of the trust by the Department.
Trimurti Educational Charitable Trust 13. We also note additional aspect arising from the record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was earlier granted approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune, ( as placed on paper book page No.3) wherein it has been categorically provided that the approval shall remain valid “from 04/02/2015 till it is withdrawn.” The said approval, as evident from the order itself, is not time-bound and continues to remain operative unless specifically withdrawn in accordance with law.
In the impugned order dated 30.08.2025, the learned CIT(Exemptions) has rejected the assessee’s application filed in Form No.10AB on the ground of delay under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). However, while doing so, the learned CIT(Exemptions) has neither referred to nor withdrawn the existing approval granted to the assessee under section 80G(5)(vi) by the order dated 06.09.2016. Thus, on the one hand, the application for approval under the new regime has been rejected on a technical ground, and on the other hand, the earlier approval, which is expressly stated to be valid till withdrawal, continues to subsist on record.
Such a situation results in an anomalous and uncertain legal position, whereby the assessee is left in a state of ambiguity as regards the applicability and continuity of its approval under section 80G(5). The rejection of the application in Form No.10AB, without expressly dealing with or withdrawing the subsisting
Trimurti Educational Charitable Trust approval, exposes the assessee to avoidable hardship and uncertainty, despite there being no adverse finding whatsoever regarding the charitable nature of its objects or the genuineness of its activities.
We also deem it appropriate to take note of the spirit and underlying intent of the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes extending the due dates for filing applications in Form No.10A and Form No.10AB under the new charitable registration and approval regime. The Board, by issuing successive extensions, has itself acknowledged that the transition to the new regime involving multiple forms, staggered timelines, and overlapping validity periods has resulted in widespread practical difficulty and genuine hardship to charitable institutions across the country.
Though it is true that such circulars do not confer an unfettered power of condonation beyond the dates specified therein, they clearly reflect an administrative recognition of bona fide lapses and interpretational confusion faced by charitable trusts while complying with the newly introduced framework. In the present case, the assessee’s explanation for delay is wholly consistent with the very circumstances which necessitated issuance of the said circulars, namely, confusion arising from multiple approvals carrying different terminal years of validity under the transition regime.
Trimurti Educational Charitable Trust 18. Viewed in this backdrop, a rigid and mechanical rejection of the assessee’s application solely on the ground of limitation, without examination on merits, would run contrary to the beneficial object sought to be achieved by the statutory scheme read in the light of the Board’s own understanding of ground realities. This aspect further supports the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
In our considered view, rejection of the assessee’s application under the new regime, without addressing the status of the existing approval which is operative till withdrawal, further reinforces the conclusion that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, focusing solely on procedural limitation, and without appreciating the complete factual and legal position governing the assessee’s entitlement under section 80G(5).
This aspect, when viewed cumulatively with the bona fide explanation offered by the assessee and the absence of any adverse finding on merits, fortifies our conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file with the following directions:
Trimurti Educational Charitable Trust i. The learned CIT(E) shall condone the delay in filing the assessee’s application in Form No.10AB, the same having been satisfactorily explained as bona fide, unintentional, and arising out of genuine confusion under the transition regime, and not attributable to any deliberate or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee; and ii. The learned CIT(E) shall thereafter examine the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G(5) on merits, strictly in accordance with law, and shall grant approval if the assessee is otherwise found to be eligible, after verifying compliance with the statutory conditions prescribed under the Act and the genuineness of its charitable activities, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.01.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 27/01/2026 DishaRaut, Stenographer