Case Law Details
Anjuman E Hyderia Asna Ashari Kashmiri Trust Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessee, a religious charitable trust registered with Charity Commissioner in 2017, was granted provisional registration u/s 12AB on 31.12.2021 for AYs 2022-23 to 2024-25. To regularise, it was required to file application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) within six months of commencement of activities or six months prior to expiry of provisional registration, whichever earlier. Due date was June 2022, but application was filed belatedly on 11.11.2024, i.e., with delay of 29 months.
CIT(E) rejected the application purely on ground of limitation, holding delay not condonable.
Before Tribunal, Assessee contended that delay was due to ill health of the trustee managing trust affairs. An affidavit affirmed on 04.09.2025 along with medical documents was filed. Assessee relied on CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024, which extended timelines for Form 10A/10B filings considering hardships. Though not directly applicable, it was argued that the spirit of Circular empowered CIT(E) to condone such delay.
Tribunal noted that merits were already complied with & the only issue was condonation of delay. Since affidavit & medical proof were now on record, Tribunal restored matter to CIT(E) with direction to consider condonation leniently & decide afresh after granting opportunity of hearing.
Order rejecting registration set aside. Matter remitted to CIT(E) for reconsideration in light of affidavit & medical evidence. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(E)] passed under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act), date of order 25/06/2025.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a religious charitable trust registered with Charity Commissioner dated 30/01/2017 vide No. E 32907. The assessee was granted the provisional registration on 31/12/2021 for the period A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2024-25. To regularise the said registration, the assessee was liable to submit the forms as per provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act “at least six months prior to expiry of period of provisional registration or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier”. So, the assessee was liable to file by the end of June, 2022 whereas the form for regularisation of provisional registration filed on 11/11/2024 i.e. delay of 29 months. The Ld. CIT(E) decided that due to the said delay, the assessee’s application is not acceptable. So, the Ld. CIT(E) asked some clarification and accordingly, replied the same but the Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee on the ground of limitation for delay in filing the form for registration. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
3. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the application for registration occurred due to the ill health of the trustee, who was responsible for handling the affairs of the trust. An affidavit duly affirmed on 04/09/2025 by Mr. Naseer Ahmed Alamgir, the trustee, was placed on record in support of this contention. The Ld. AR further relied on CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024 dated 25th April 2024, wherein the Board extended the due date for filing Forms 10A and 10B under the Act, considering the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and stakeholders. Although the circular may not be directly applicable to the present case, the Ld. AR contended that its spirit, read with the jurisdiction vested in the Ld. CIT(E), clearly empowers the authority to condone the delay in filing the impugned application for regularization of provisional registration.
4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the revenue authorities.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents available on record. It is noted that during the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee had already complied with the requirements on merits. However, the aspect of delay in filing the application was not adequately addressed before the Ld. CIT(E). Having regard to the above-mentioned circular, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(E) is vested with the jurisdiction to condone such delay. It is further observed that the assessee had not filed any affidavit before the Ld. CIT(E) for explaining the delay. The affidavit supported by medical documents has now been placed before us. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration of the assessee’s application in light of the affidavit and medical evidence. The assessee is directed to submit the said affidavit and supporting documents before the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) is further directed to decide the issue of condonation of delay in a lenient manner, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4776/Mum/2025 is
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of September 2025.
Author Bio
