Remand granted for 12AB registration and 80G approval due to missed notice and condonable delay

By | December 6, 2025
0 Comment

Remand granted for 12AB registration and 80G approval due to missed notice and condonable delay

Issue

  1. Section 12AB Registration: Whether the rejection of a registration application is valid when the assessee complied with the initial notice but missed the subsequent one due to inadvertence.

  2. Section 80G Approval: Whether the delay in filing Form 10AB should be condoned considering the CBDT circulars extending the timeline for compliance.

Facts

  • 12AB Application: The assessee applied for fresh registration under Section 12AB.

  • Partial Compliance: The Commissioner (Exemption) issued a notice for information, which the assessee duly furnished.

  • Missed Notice: A second notice was issued regarding discrepancies found in the submitted details. The assessee failed to reply, claiming the notice was not seen.

  • Rejection: Consequently, the Commissioner rejected the 12AB application and cancelled the provisional registration ex-parte.

  • 80G Application: The assessee filed Form 10AB for Section 80G approval on 27-12-2022.

  • Rejection on Delay: The application was rejected on 29-06-2023 solely on the ground that it was time-barred.

  • Regulatory Update: Subsequent CBDT circulars extended the filing deadline to 30-06-2024 and permitted fresh applications for cases rejected on delay.

Decision

  • 12AB Remand: The Tribunal observed that since the assessee had complied with the initial notice, the failure to respond to the final notice was not willful. To serve the ends of justice, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to decide the application afresh.

  • 80G Delay Condoned: Taking note of the CBDT circulars extending the deadline to 30-06-2024 and the legislative intent to relax timelines, the Tribunal held that the delay should be condoned.

  • Direction: The Commissioner was directed to treat the 80G application as valid regarding time and decide it on merits.

Key Takeaways

Benefit of Compliance History: If an assessee has responded to initial notices, courts are inclined to view a subsequent non-response as a genuine lapse rather than negligence, often warranting a remand.

Form 10AB Extension: Rejections of Section 80G applications based on limitation periods (for applications filed before June 2024) are generally unsustainable due to the CBDT’s amnesty circulars extending the due date.

IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH ‘A’
Maitri Foundation
v.
CIT, Exemption*
R.K. PANDA, Vice President
and Vinay Bhamore, Judicial Member
IT Appeal Nos. 1668 and 1669 (PUN) of 2025
NOVEMBER  19, 2025
Prasad S. Bhandari for the Appellant. Amol Khairnar for the Respondent.
ORDER
Vinay Bhamore, Judicial Member.- Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 29.06.2023 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act filed on 27.12.2022 and denying the application for approval in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act filed on 27.12.2022.
2. There is delay in filing of the present appeals. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeals.
ITA No.1668/PUN/2025 :
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of Act on 27.12.2022. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune through ITBA portal on 15.03.2023 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 30.03.2023. The desired information was furnished by the assessee. On verification of said information furnished by the assessee, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies in the information furnished by the assessee and issued another notice on 20.06.2023. The compliance was due on or before 26.06.2023. Since the assessee has not furnished any reply in response to notice dated 20.06.2023, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration and also cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 05.04.2022 u/s 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the IT Act.
4. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not provided proper opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, the impugned order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. It was submitted that the second and last notice was issued on 20.06.2023 asking for various information and other details and the compliance was required to be made on or before 26.06.2023. It was submitted that somehow the second and last notice could not be seen by the assessee and therefore reply could not be furnished before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee, he is in a position to reply to the notice issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to provide at least one more opportunity to reply to the notice issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.
6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.
7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the assessee made compliance to the initial notice issued by the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and could not file reply in response to final notice. It is the sole contention of the assessee trust that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to furnish reply before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune.
8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, & also in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we setaside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the application for registration afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and produce requisite documents/information/ submissions in support of the application for registration 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 of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1668/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.1669/PUN/2025 :
10. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee filed its application for approval in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act on 27.12.2022. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and fulfilment of conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act, notices were issued through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification. The assessee in response to above notices furnished desired information as mentioned in the notices. After verifying these details, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune dismissed the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act by observing as under :-
“6.9 In view of the above, the present application filed in Form No.10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act is liable to be rejected without going into the merits since the assessee has not filed the present application within the time limit allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected and the provisional approval granted on 06/04/2022 under clause (iv) for first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.”
11. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
12. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is not justified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act was rejected by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune by treating the application as filed belatedly. Ld. AR further submitted before us that the CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 has provided extended time limit upto 30.06.2024 to file such an application. CBDT has also provided liberty to file fresh application before 30.06.2024 in case the application was already dismissed on the ground of delay. Ld. AR also submitted that w.e.f. 01.10.2024 there is an amendment in clause (iv) of third proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act which permits the assessee to file application for approval at any time after the commencement of activities. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to allow the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act.
13. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.
14. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the application dated 27.12.2022 for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act was rejected merely on the ground of delay. However, we find that CBDT has provided extended time limit upto 30.06.2024 to file such an application and also gave liberty to furnish a fresh application if such as an application was already rejected on the ground of delay. Apart from this, we also find that w.e.f. 01-10-2024 there is an amendment in proviso to section 80G(5)(iv) of the Act which permits the assessee to file application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act even after commencement of their activities. However, the application was furnished on 27.12.2022 and was rejected on 29.06.2023 and the CBDT Circular came in on 25.04.2024 and ultimately there is an amendment in the section itself which provides for furnishing of application even after commencement of the activities.
15. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion, we find some force in the arguments of the Ld. counsel of the assessee. Accordingly in the interest of justice, & without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune & remand the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay & decide the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and produce requisite documents/information in support of the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the 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 of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1669/pUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.
17. To sum up, both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.