Mahaveer Swami Panchsikhri Jinalya Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Jodhpur)
Summary: The appeal was filed by Shree Mahaveer Swami Panchsikhri Jinalya Trust against the order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur, rejecting the assessee’s application dated 27.09.2025 in Form No. 10AB for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The sole controversy before the ITAT was whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the renewal application on the ground that the assessee was not registered under section 12A/12AA before 01.04.2021 and consequently could not have applied under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac).
The assessee-trust was established on 11.10.2018 and was engaged in religious-cum-charitable activities, with objects covering religious purposes, relief of the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of objects of general public utility. It was subsequently registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 on 08.07.2025.
After introduction of the new registration regime, the assessee applied for provisional registration and was granted registration through Form No. 10AC dated 27.05.2021 under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) for Assessment Years 2021-22 to 2023-24. It thereafter applied for regular registration through Form No. 10A on 25.11.2022. While filing that application, clause (i) of section 12A(1)(ac) was selected. The Department accepted the application and granted regular registration through Form No. 10AC dated 02.12.2022 under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of section 12A(1), for Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27.
When that registration was due to expire, the assessee filed Form No. 10AB on 27.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal. TaxGuru material independently confirms that Form No. 10AB is used for renewal applications where registration under section 12AB is due to expire and identifies section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) as the relevant provision.
The CIT(E) required the assessee to furnish registration under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021, proceeding on the premise that the 02.12.2022 registration had been granted under clause (i), which contemplated an institution registered under the erstwhile regime.
The assessee explained that it had never claimed to have been registered under section 12A/12AA before 01.04.2021. It was a new applicant under the new regime and had received provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) on 27.05.2021. It contended that clause (i) had inadvertently been selected on the e-filing portal instead of clause (iii), applicable to an institution converting provisional registration into regular registration. Nevertheless, the Department had itself examined the application and granted regular registration on 02.12.2022, which had never been cancelled or withdrawn.
The CIT(E) rejected the application, holding that because the assessee did not possess registration under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021, registration could not have been granted under clause (i), and that the Form No. 10AB application was deficient.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that it possessed a valid registration whose period was due to expire when Form No. 10AB was filed and therefore renewal under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was the appropriate application. It further relied on Sainath Education Charitable Trust v. CIT(E) [2025] 177 taxmann.com 582; 214 ITD 465, for the proposition that an application should not be rejected merely because an incorrect sub-clause had been selected where the substantive entitlement and nature of the application were otherwise apparent from the record.
The ITAT found the CIT(E)’s approach to proceed on a fundamental misconception of the factual position. It noted that the assessee had undisputedly received provisional registration on 27.05.2021 and regular registration on 02.12.2022, which remained operative for Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27. The existence and validity of that registration could not be wished away merely because the earlier application may have mentioned an incorrect sub-clause.
The Tribunal observed that section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), in substance, contemplated an application by a trust or institution already registered under section 12AB whose registration period was due to expire. Since the assessee possessed such a subsisting registration on 27.09.2025, its application in Form No. 10AB under clause (ii) was correctly filed.
The Tribunal further held that if clause (i) had been erroneously selected in the 2022 application and clause (iii) ought to have been selected, that constituted an error in the earlier application which nevertheless culminated in a registration order actually passed by the Department. Unless that registration order was withdrawn or cancelled in accordance with law, it continued to operate and carry legal consequences. A subsisting statutory registration could not be treated as non-existent collaterally while deciding its renewal.
The ITAT also found the reference in the impugned order to the assessee not being registered under “clause (i) or (iii) of first proviso to section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)” to be misplaced. The relevant enquiry was whether an existing registered trust, whose registration was due to expire, had filed its renewal application within clause (ii). On the admitted facts, the answer was affirmative.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not rejected the application on any adverse finding concerning the charitable or religious objects, genuineness of activities, or violation of registration conditions. The rejection rested entirely on the perceived defect concerning the clause under which the earlier registration had been obtained. Once that premise was found unsustainable, no substantive ground remained for declining renewal.
Accordingly, the ITAT held that the assessee, having a valid and subsisting registration granted on 02.12.2022 for Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27, had correctly filed Form No. 10AB dated 27.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) for renewal. The impugned order dated 14.03.2026 was set aside and the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration to the assessee under section 12AB in accordance with law for the applicable period. The appeal was allowed.
Cases Discussed
- Sainath Education Charitable Trust v. CIT(E) [2025] 177 taxmann.com 582; 214 ITD 465 (ITAT Ahmedabad)
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JODHPUR
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [“Ld. CIT(E)”], whereby the assessee’s application dated 27.09.2025 filed in Form No. 10AB for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been rejected.
2. The sole controversy arising in the present appeal is whether the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the assessee was not registered under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021 and, therefore, according to him, it could not have applied under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac).
3. The relevant facts emerging from the record are that the assessee-trust was established on 11.10.2018 and is engaged in religious-cum-charitable activities. Its objects, inter alia, encompass religious purposes, relief of the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of objects of general public utility. The assessee was subsequently registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 on 08.07.2025.
4. With the introduction of the new regime of registration of charitable institutions, the assessee applied for provisional registration and was granted the same vide Form No. 10AC dated 27.05.2021, specifically under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi), for Assessment Years 2021-22 to 2023-24. Thus, there is no dispute that the assessee entered the new registration regime as a new trust and was validly granted provisional registration by the Department.
5. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10A on 25.11.2022 for regular registration. While making such application, clause (i) of section 12A(1)(ac) came to be selected. The Department accepted the application and, after considering the material available on record, granted regular registration vide Form No. 10AC dated 02.12.2022, specifically recording the registration under sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of section 12A(1). The registration was granted for Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27. Thus, as on the date relevant for the present proceedings, a valid and subsisting order of registration dated 02.12.2022 was admittedly operating in favour of the assessee.
6. Since the aforesaid regular registration was due to expire, the assessee filed the present application on 27.09.2025 in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of the existing registration. During the proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) called upon the assessee to furnish its registration under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021, on the premise that the registration dated 02.12.2022 had been granted under clause (i) and that clause (i) contemplated an institution already registered under the erstwhile regime.
7. The assessee explained before the Ld. CIT(E) that it had never claimed to have been registered under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021. It was a new applicant under the new regime and had initially been granted provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) on 27.05.2021. Thereafter, while applying for regular registration, clause (i) was inadvertently selected on the e-filing portal instead of clause (iii), which was applicable to an institution converting its provisional registration into regular registration. However, notwithstanding such selection, the Department itself examined and accepted the application and granted regular registration on 02.12.2022, which continued to remain valid and subsisting.
8. The Ld. CIT(E), however, was not persuaded by the aforesaid explanation. He observed that since the assessee did not possess registration under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021, it could not have been granted registration under clause (i). He further observed that the assessee was not registered under clause (i) or (iii) of what has been described in the impugned order as the “first proviso to section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)” and consequently held Form No. 10AB to be deficient. On this reasoning, the application dated 27.09.2025 was rejected.
9. Before us, the learned counsel submitted that the entire premise adopted by the Ld. CIT(E) is factually as well as legally misconceived. The assessee had admittedly been granted provisional registration on 27.05.2021 and thereafter regular registration on 02.12.2022. The latter registration was never cancelled or withdrawn and was valid up to Assessment Year 2026-27. Therefore, when the assessee filed Form No. 10AB on 27.09.2025, it was an institution holding a valid registration whose period was due to expire, and hence the application for renewal under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was the appropriate application.
10. It was further submitted that even assuming that the assessee had selected an incorrect clause while filing its earlier application in the year 2022, the Department having itself granted regular registration thereon, such subsisting registration could not simply be ignored while deciding the subsequent application for renewal. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Sainath Education Charitable Trust v. CIT(E) [2025] 177 taxmann.com 582; 214 ITD 465, for the proposition that an application should not be rejected merely because an incorrect sub-clause has been selected when the substantive entitlement and the nature of application are otherwise apparent from the record.
11. We have heard the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record. In our opinion, the impugned order proceeds on a fundamental misconception of the factual position. There is no dispute that the assessee was granted provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) on 27.05.2021. Equally, there is no dispute that thereafter an order granting regular registration was passed by the Department on 02.12.2022 and such registration was operative for Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27. The existence and validity of this registration on the date of filing the present application cannot be wished away merely because the earlier application may have mentioned an incorrect sub-clause.
12. Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), in substance, contemplates an application by a trust or institution which is already registered under section 12AB and whose period of registration is due to expire. On the date when the assessee filed Form No. 10AB, i.e., 27.09.2025, it indisputably possessed the registration granted on 02.12.2022, which was due to expire. Therefore, for the purpose of renewal, the assessee had rightly applied under clause (ii). The antecedent question as to whether, at the time of obtaining regular registration in 2022, the assessee ought to have applied under clause (iii) instead of clause (i), cannot render the subsequent application under clause (ii) defective so long as the registration granted by the competent authority on 02.12.2022 continues to remain valid and operative.
13. There is another significant aspect. The Ld. CIT(E) appears to have proceeded on the basis that the assessee ought to establish registration under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021 because its regular registration dated 02.12.2022 was granted under clause (i). However, the record itself demonstrates that the assessee’s first registration under the new regime was the provisional registration granted on 27.05.2021 under clause (vi). Thus, the absence of any registration prior to 01.04.2021 was neither concealed nor disputed by the assessee. In fact, it was entirely consistent with the history of its registration appearing from the Department’s own record.
14. If the selection of clause (i) in the application filed on 25.11.2022 was erroneous and clause (iii) ought properly to have been selected, that was an error in the earlier application which culminated in an order of registration passed by the Department itself. Such an error cannot, by itself, obliterate the legal existence of the registration subsequently granted. Unless that order is withdrawn or cancelled in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law, it continues to operate and carries its legal consequences. A subsisting statutory registration cannot be treated as non-existent collaterally while adjudicating an application for its renewal.
15. We also find the reference in the impugned order to the assessee not being registered under “clause (i) or (iii) of first proviso to section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)” to be misplaced. Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), etc., are themselves distinct situations contemplated under section 12A(1)(ac). Once the assessee had been granted provisional registration under clause (vi), followed by regular registration by an express order of the Department, the real enquiry in the present proceedings was whether the assessee, being an existing registered trust whose registration was due to expire, had filed the renewal application within the framework of clause (ii). On the admitted facts, the answer is clearly in the affirmative.
16. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel in Sainath Education Charitable Trust (supra) also supports the proposition that the statutory scheme under section 12A(1)(ac) prescribes different sub-clauses corresponding to different factual situations and a bona fide selection of an incorrect sub-clause should not defeat the substantive claim for registration where the correct nature of the application is otherwise evident. Here, the case of the assessee stands on an even stronger footing because regular registration had actually been granted by the Department and was subsisting when renewal was sought.
17. We further notice that the Ld. CIT(E) has not rejected the application on any adverse finding regarding the charitable or religious objects of the assessee, genuineness of its activities or any violation of the conditions governing registration. The rejection rests entirely upon the perceived defect relating to the clause under which the earlier registration had been obtained. Once that premise is found to be unsustainable for the reasons discussed above, there remains no substantive ground in the impugned order for declining renewal.
18. In these circumstances, we hold that the assessee, having a valid and subsisting registration granted vide order dated 02.12.2022 for Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27, had correctly filed its application dated 27.09.2025 in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) for renewal of registration. The finding of the Ld. CIT(E) that the said application was deficient merely because the assessee did not possess registration under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021 is, therefore, factually misconceived and legally untenable.
19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.03.2026 is set aside and the Ld. CIT(E) is directed to grant registration to the assessee under section 12AB in accordance with law for the applicable period. The observations in the impugned order founded upon the assessee’s non-registration under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021 shall not constitute any impediment in giving effect to this direction.
20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2026.
