SHRI PARSHWA TILAK SHWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK JAIN ,MUMBAI V. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 4526/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Parshwa Tilak Shwetamber Murtipujak Jain Trust appealing against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, which rejected their application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was primarily due to the late filing of the application in Form No. 10AB. The Trust argued that the delay was caused by an inadvertent oversight by their chartered accountant, which they contended was a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal considered the submissions and the affidavit of the chartered accountant, deciding to set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remand the matter for fresh consideration after allowing the Trust to substantiate the reasons for the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774356 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Ignorance of law

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4526/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-2026) Shri Parshwa Tilak Shwetamber Murtipujak Jain Trust, A-401, Krishna Bldg Neelkantha, Vihar Complex, Tilak Nagar S.O., Mumbai- 400089 [PAN: AAOTS4305G] …………. Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Room No. 601,6th Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026 Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Department For the Respondent/Assessee : : Shri Shyam Saboo & Shri D C Saboo Shri R. A. Dhyani Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 26.08.2025 10.09.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 25/06/2025, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] for the Assessment Year 2025-2026 whereby the application filed by the Assessee seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] was rejected. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. CIT[E] has erred in rejecting application for regularization of provision registration in form 10AB. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No 4526/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2025-2026 2. Trust has prevented by sufficient cause in filing of application in form 10AB Due to over sight, admisnstrative lapse in chartered accountant's office appliaction filed late due to chartered accountant office fault appellant should not be suffer. 3. CIT(E) has erred in not condoning the late filing of application in form 10AB by mentioning it is well settled in principle that ignorance of law cannot be pleaded as defective or valid excuse. 4. CIT[E] has erred not into taking in to consideration late application is inadvertent and unintentional without any mala- fide intention and the trust is actively engaged in genuine charitable activities since its inception. 5. CIT(E) has erred in calculation late period in filing of application in form 10AB CIT[E] has not taken in to consideration that CBDT has extended period of filing of form 10a and 10AB vide circular no 7/2024 dt 25.04.2024 till 30.06.2024. 6. CIT(E) has not deal the matter keeping in view the facts in entirely and objective of trust being welfare. It is undisputed fact that provisional registration was granted up to Α.Υ. 2024- 25. 7. Making application for renewal is the procedure, CIT[E] has treated as it is law hence he observed ignorance of law is not excuse. It is ignorance of procedure and ignorance of procedure is excuse. 8. Procedural provision should be so construed as to sub serve the course and not hindered its justice. 9. Time line prescribed is directory in nature and not mandatory. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. We have heard both the side and perused the material on record. The Assessee is aggrieved by impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application filed by the Assessee in Form No. 10AB for approval under Section 10(23)(c) of the Act on the ground that the same was filed after expiry of the specific period. The contention of the Assessee is that the delay in filing the application Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No 4526/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2025-2026 was on account of the fact that the concerned chartered accountant had fail to take necessary steps due to inadvertent oversight. It was submitted by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee that vide Submissions, dated 22/08/2025, filed by the Assessee specific request was made to condone the delay in filing the application even though the power to condone delay was available with the Ld. CIT(E) in view of the Proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act [effective from 01/10/2024]. Placing reliance upon the affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant [placed at page 11 to 13 of the Paper book] the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the application within time. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned by this Tribunal. 4. Opposing the submissions made by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal did not have power to condone the delay. It was submitted that since no application seeking condonation of delay was filed by the Assessee, the reliance placed by the Assessee on Proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act was misplaced. It was further submitted that the affidavit of the Chartered Accountant on which reliance was placed on behalf ot he Assessee was also not filed before the Ld. CIT(E). 5. In rejoinder Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that though no separate application for seeking condonation of delay was moved by the Assessee, specific submission seeking condonation of delay in filing the application was made by the Assessee. In this regard reliance was placed on Paragraph 31 of the Written Submission, dated 22/08/2025 filed before the Ld. CIT(E). The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that since the Assessee was not confronted Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No 4526/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2025-2026 by the Ld. CIT(E) on the issue of the application being barred by limitation, the Assessee could not file the affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant. It was submitted, on a without prejudice basis, that the issue be restored back to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits after taking into consideration the prayer of the Assessee for condoning delay in filing the application. 6. Having giving thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served in the case the alternative plea made by Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee is accepted. We are of the view that Assessee should have been granted an opportunity to explain and substantiate the reasons for delay in filing the application in view of the specific submissions made by the Assessee in this regards in Paragraph 31 of the Written Submissions dated 22/08/2025 filed by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, dated 25/06/2025, passed by Ld. CIT(E). The Assessee is directed to move appropriate application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application for regularization of the provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Act along with the affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant and such other documents as the Assessee may deem fit to establish that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the application. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to adjudicate the application in Form 10AB after taking into consideration the result of disposal of aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay filed by the Assessee. It is clarified that the Assessee shall be granted reasonable opportunity of being heard and to place on record relevant documents/details/submissions in support of its contentions. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes while Ground No.5 to 10 are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No 4526/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2025-2026 7. In terms of Paragraph 6 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Vikram Singh Yadav) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 10.09.2025 Disha Raut ,Stenographer Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No 4526/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2025-2026 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "