Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Anant Vallabh Foundation,Asalpha vs Ito 27(1)(1) Mumbai, Vashi on 17 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "A", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.7482/Mum/2025
(Assessment year: 2026-27 to 2030-31)
Anant Vallabh Foundation vs ITO 27(1)(1), Mumbai
6A Subhash Nagar, IT Office, Vashi Railway Station
Kulkarniwadi, Mumbai-400084 Complex, Mumbai-400703
PAN: AAJTA1200D
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri Ryan Saldanha,
Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT DR)
Date of hearing : 11/03/2026
Date of pronouncement : 17/03/2026
ORDER
Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [for brevity the "Ld. CIT(E)"], order passed under section 12A of the Act (for brevity 'the Act') date of order 26.09.2025.2 ITA No.7482/Mum/2025
Anant Vallabh Foundation
2. The assessee is a charitable trust and had provisional approval u/sec. 12A on 05.11.2022. The assessee applied for final approval u/sec. 12A of the Act on 01.09.2025. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the 12A of the Act since the application was filed by violation the direction of statute, beyond six month deadline. The Ld. CIT(E) in the impugned order noted that the procedural mandate is governed by the provisions of Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the 'Rules') which is titled within 'application for registration' of charitable or religious trust etc. The Sub Rule 2 of Rule 17A mandates that the application in form 10B is to be accompanied by a specific documents and the same is filed beyond the six months from end of the registration. Accordingly the assessee's provisional registration is duly granted from A.Y. 2023-24 to AY 2025-26. Plain reading of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act is as follows:-
"where the trust or institution has been provisionally registered under section 12AB, at least six months prior to expiry of period of the provisional registration or within six months of commencement of its activities whichevre is earlier."
3. Accordingly, the provisional registration expired on 31.03.2025. Hence it is ought to have made application by 30.09.2024. However, the trust has made the application on 03.03.2025 that is after delay of 5 months. The Ld. AR contended that the trustees were under impression that the provisionally approval was 5 years or 10 years. The trustee of the assessee is first time applied for renewal of provisional registration. So, there is reasonable causes for delay in application for final registration. The Ld. AR prayed to restore the application to the file of Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to grant the final approval.
3 ITA No.7482/Mum/2025Anant Vallabh Foundation
4. In argument the Ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in Sunworld Society for Social Services vs CIT (E) reported in (2025) 176 taxmann.com 758 (Pune-Trib). The observation of the Bench contended in relevant paragraph is reproduced as below:-
"7. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal (supra), and in the light of newly inserted proviso to sub clause vi of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A wherein the PCIT or CIT have been empowered to condone the delay if they find that there was reasonable cause in not filing the application within the prescribed time limit, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CH, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to treat the application as filed within time and decide the issue afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT. Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce relevant documents/evidences, if any, in support of application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the IT Act without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT. Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.795/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.796 PUN/2025
9. The instant appeal is against the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption. Pune denying grant of approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act. Since we have remanded the issue of grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act to the file of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune for de novo adjudication, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the issue of grant of approval u/s 80G(5) as well to the file of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune being consequential, for de novo adjudication after treating the application as filed within time.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.796/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes
11. To sum up, both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose."4 ITA No.7482/Mum/2025
Anant Vallabh Foundation
5. The Ld. DR argued and contended that Ld. CIT(E) has not empowered to condone the delay for filing the registration application in Form No.10AB. The assessee had failed to submit the sufficient cause for condoning the delay and allowing for approval. The Ld. DR respectfully relied on the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Bishnupur Public Education Institute vs CIT(E) reported in (2022) 139 taxmann.com 121 [Kolkata-Trib] held that the application of assessee for grant of approval u/sec. 10(23C)(vi) had rightly been rejected as it was time barred and there is no statutory provision nor there is any power for Commissioner(E) to condone the delay after considering reasonable reasons. He further relied on the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Pune in the case of Smt. Mangla Ramniwas Mandhani ABMM Awas Yojana Foundation vs CIT(E) reported in (2024) 162 taxmann.com 842 (Pune-Trib.). The relevant paragraph no.7 is reproduced as below:
"7. In the present case, the provisional approval u/s 80G(5) was granted to the appellant trust on 24.09.2022. The appellant trust was required to file application in Form 10A1B on or belore 28.06.2023 but the same came to be filed on 29.08.2023. Thus, there is a delay of more than six months. Therefore, the question to be answered is that whether the Tribunal, while exercising the power vested under the provisions of section 80G(5) can condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal. A mere perusal of provisions of section 80G(5), it would reveal that the Legislature has not vested the Tribunal with the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The scheme of the Act would disclose that the Legislature had deliberately excluded the application of the principles underlying section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act in relation to the provisions of section 80G of the Income Tax Act. However, the Legislature had vested the power to condonation of delay in relation to the provisions of section 249 and section 254 of the Act. Thus, the very fact that the Legislature had provided for a power to condonation of delay in relation to the provisions of section 249 and section 254 of the Act shows that the legislature had consciously excluded the power of Tribunal to condone the delay in relation to the provisions of section 80G(5) of the Act. In this connection, we would like reference to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nityananda M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1970 SC 209 held that in view of section 4 & 5 of the Limitation Act, it would be clear 5 ITA No.7482/Mum/2025 Anant Vallabh Foundation that the scheme of the Act is that it only deals with applications to courts and the Labour Court is not a court within the meaning of the Limitation Act, and, therefore, an application u/s 33C(2) cannot be held to be barred under Article 137, insofar as the claim was for a period beyond three years."
The Ld. DR stands in favor of the order of Ld. CIT(E).
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Upon verification of the facts, we find that the assessee is a charitable trust constituted on 09.12.2021. The assessee had applied for provisional registration under section 12A of the Act, which was granted for a period of three years, i.e., from AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26. The provisional registration of the assessee was valid up to 31.03.2025. As per Rule 17A of the Rules, the assessee was required to file an application for regular registration within six months prior to the expiry of the provisional registration, i.e., on or before 30.09.2024. However, the assessee filed the application for regular registration on 30.03.2025, resulting in a delay of about five months. The assessee had duly explained the reasons for such delay before the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. DR contended that the Ld. CIT(E) does not have the power to condone the delay in filing an application for approval under section 12A of the Act. However, on consideration of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Pune in the case of Sunworld Society of Social Services (supra), we find that the Ld. CIT(E) is empowered to condone the delay where reasonable cause is shown for filing the application belatedly. Further, the relevant proviso inserted with effect from 01.10.2024 provides as uner:
"Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in sub-clause (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause 6 ITA No.7482/Mum/2025 Anant Vallabh Foundation for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time."
Thus, the statute itself empowers the Ld. CIT(E) to condone the delay in filing such applications where reasonable cause is established. In the present case, we note that this is the first instance where the assessee had obtained provisional registration and subsequently filed an application for regular registration. The decisions relied upon by the Ld. DR are factually distinguishable, particularly in view of the amendment brought into force with effect from 01.10.2024. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to condone the delay of five months in filing the application and to admit the assessee's application for regular registration under section 12A of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the application in accordance with law and, upon due verification of the relevant Form and supporting documents, grant registration if the conditions prescribed under the Act are satisfied.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.7482/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th day of March 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनां क/Dated: 17/03/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 7 ITA No.7482/Mum/2025 Anant Vallabh Foundation 3. आयकरआयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाडफाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI