My Form 10AB for final registration under s.12AB was rejected as time-barred because I missed the 30 June 2024 date in Circular 7/2024. Is anything left to me?
Yes. From 1 October 2024 a proviso to s.12A(1)(ac) lets the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner condone a delay in filing the application where he considers there is reasonable cause, and the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) with liberty to the trust to make a condonation application. The delay itself was not in dispute; what saved the trust was that the rejection order recorded no defect in its objects, its activities or its documents, its bona fides were not questioned, and the delay did not prima facie appear deliberate.
Decided by the ITAT (Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member — ITAT Mumbai "A" Bench) on 2026-01-20, reported as ITA No.6809/MUM/2025 and ITA No.6810/MUM/2025. It bears on section 12AB, section 12A(1)(ac), section 12A(1)(ac)(i), section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), section 12AB(1), section 12AB(1)(a), section 80G, section 80G(5), section 80G(5)(i), section 119 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Capital Gains Exemptions matters.
This is the commonest live dispute on the new registration regime and the answer changed on 1 October 2024. Before that date a CIT(E) could and routinely did say he had no power to condone; after it the power is on the statute, so an order that refuses condonation must now engage with reasonable cause rather than assert an absence of jurisdiction. Note the limits: the Tribunal did not itself condone the delay and did not hold that reliance on a chartered accountant is sufficient cause — it sent the question back. The Revenue's position, recorded at paragraph 7, is that the time limit is mandatory and the CIT(E) has no discretion at all, and that argument has not been authoritatively closed off. The parallel 80G application was rejected only as a consequence of the s.12AB rejection, and was restored on the same footing — but the condonation proviso sits in s.12A(1)(ac), not in s.80G(5), so the two applications must be argued differently.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The appellant is a company registered under s.8 of the Companies Act 2013, incorporated on 18 June 2015, with objects covering schools, colleges, orphanages, old age homes and the promotion of legal education and legal literacy including pro bono services. It held registration under s.12AA from AY 2016-17 and had filed returns as a charitable institution throughout. Following the Finance Act 2020 it filed Form 10A on 18 July 2022 within time, but under section code 12A(1)(ac)(vi), which applies to a new organisation, instead of 12A(1)(ac)(i), which applies to an existing one. On 3 August 2022 it was issued Form 10AC granting provisional registration under s.12AB from AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26. Activities were carried on during FY 2022-23, so on the CIT(E)'s view Form 10AB was due within six months of commencement, in February 2023. Form 10AB was in fact filed on 5 March 2025, on realising in early March 2025 that the provisional registration would lapse on 31 March 2025, accompanied by a condonation petition and, later, a second condonation letter dated 29 August 2025 enclosing a declaration by the chartered accountant. By order dated 27 September 2025 the CIT(E) refused to condone the delay, holding that reliance on a chartered accountant was not sufficient cause and that the applicant had failed to avail the extension to 30 June 2024 given by CBDT Circular 7/2024. The 80G application in Form 10AB filed the same day was rejected by order in Form 10AD dated 27 September 2025 as consequential, the trust having no valid s.12AB registration for the purposes of s.80G(5)(i).
Both appeals allowed for statistical purposes. The application was admittedly beyond the time limit even as extended to 30 June 2024 by Circular 7/2024, but the impugned order records no defect in the activities, objects or documents of the company, its bona fides are not in dispute and the delay does not prima facie appear deliberate. The matter is restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, the trust being at liberty to file an application for condonation of the delay, which the CIT(E) is to dispose of in accordance with the extant law after a reasonable opportunity of being heard; the consequential rejection of the s.80G application is set aside on the same terms (paras 8, 8.1, 8.3, 9 and 12). The additional ground on the wrong section code was left open (para 8.3).
The Tribunal accepted at paragraph 8 that CBDT Circular 7/2024 dated 25 April 2024 had extended the due date for such applications to 30 June 2024, so there could be no denying that the application was beyond the prescribed time limit. It then separated delay from merit: apart from the delay, the impugned order recorded no defect in the activities or objects or in the documents submitted, and bona fides were not in dispute. At paragraph 8.1 it pointed to the proviso to s.12A(1)(ac) placed on the statute by the Finance Act 2024 from 1 October 2024, which formally allows the CIT(E) to condone delay where reasonable cause is shown, and held that the matter therefore deserved to go back for fresh consideration on a condonation application rather than to be closed on limitation. At paragraph 8.2 it set out the directions of a coordinate bench in Narke Green Foundation, which emphasised a flexible and pragmatic approach to procedural law and the ascertainment of the bona fides of the explanation offered. Because the s.80G rejection rested only on the absence of a valid s.12AB registration, it fell with the restoration of the s.12AB application (paras 11 and 12).
We find that the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance Act, 2024 from 01.10.2024 made available on the statute a "Proviso" to Section 12A(1)(ac) that formally allows the ld.CIT(E) to condone the delay if reasonable cause is shown.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. From 1 October 2024 a proviso to s.12A(1)(ac) lets the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner condone a delay in filing the application where he considers there is reasonable cause, and the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) with liberty to the trust to make a condonation application. The delay itself was not in dispute; what saved the trust was that the rejection order recorded no defect in its objects, its activities or its documents, its bona fides were not questioned, and the delay did not prima facie appear deliberate. This was decided by the ITAT (Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member — ITAT Mumbai "A" Bench) and bears on section 12AB, section 12A(1)(ac), section 12A(1)(ac)(i), section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), section 12AB(1), section 12AB(1)(a), section 80G, section 80G(5), section 80G(5)(i), section 119 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No.6809/MUM/2025 and ITA No.6810/MUM/2025. This is the commonest live dispute on the new registration regime and the answer changed on 1 October 2024. Before that date a CIT(E) could and routinely did say he had no power to condone; after it the power is on the statute, so an order that refuses condonation must now engage with reasonable cause rather than assert an absence of jurisdiction. Note the limits: the Tribunal did not itself condone the delay and did not hold that reliance on a chartered accountant is sufficient cause — it sent the question back. The Revenue's position, recorded at paragraph 7, is that the time limit is mandatory and the CIT(E) has no discretion at all, and that argument has not been authoritatively closed off. The parallel 80G application was rejected only as a consequence of the s.12AB rejection, and was restored on the same footing — but the condonation proviso sits in s.12A(1)(ac), not in s.80G(5), so the two applications must be argued differently. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Work out the date on which your activities commenced and the expiry date of the Form 10AC provisional registration, and identify which of the two produced the earlier six-month deadline under s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) — that is the date the CIT(E) will use.
The appellant is a company registered under s.8 of the Companies Act 2013, incorporated on 18 June 2015, with objects covering schools, colleges, orphanages, old age homes and the promotion of legal education and legal literacy including pro bono services. It held registration under s.12AA from AY 2016-17 and had filed returns as a charitable institution throughout. Following the Finance Act 2020 it filed Form 10A on 18 July 2022 within time, but under section code 12A(1)(ac)(vi), which applies to a new organisation, instead of 12A(1)(ac)(i), which applies to an existing one. On 3 August 2022 it was issued Form 10AC granting provisional registration under s.12AB from AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26. Activities were carried on during FY 2022-23, so on the CIT(E)'s view Form 10AB was due within six months of commencement, in February 2023. Form 10AB was in fact filed on 5 March 2025, on realising in early March 2025 that the provisional registration would lapse on 31 March 2025, accompanied by a condonation petition and, later, a second condonation letter dated 29 August 2025 enclosing a declaration by the chartered accountant. By order dated 27 September 2025 the CIT(E) refused to condone the delay, holding that reliance on a chartered accountant was not sufficient cause and that the applicant had failed to avail the extension to 30 June 2024 given by CBDT Circular 7/2024. The 80G application in Form 10AB filed the same day was rejected by order in Form 10AD dated 27 September 2025 as consequential, the trust having no valid s.12AB registration for the purposes of s.80G(5)(i). The matter was decided on 2026-01-20 by the ITAT (Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member — ITAT Mumbai "A" Bench). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Both appeals allowed for statistical purposes. The application was admittedly beyond the time limit even as extended to 30 June 2024 by Circular 7/2024, but the impugned order records no defect in the activities, objects or documents of the company, its bona fides are not in dispute and the delay does not prima facie appear deliberate. The matter is restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, the trust being at liberty to file an application for condonation of the delay, which the CIT(E) is to dispose of in accordance with the extant law after a reasonable opportunity of being heard; the consequential rejection of the s.80G application is set aside on the same terms (paras 8, 8.1, 8.3, 9 and 12). The additional ground on the wrong section code was left open (para 8.3).
The Tribunal accepted at paragraph 8 that CBDT Circular 7/2024 dated 25 April 2024 had extended the due date for such applications to 30 June 2024, so there could be no denying that the application was beyond the prescribed time limit. It then separated delay from merit: apart from the delay, the impugned order recorded no defect in the activities or objects or in the documents submitted, and bona fides were not in dispute. At paragraph 8.1 it pointed to the proviso to s.12A(1)(ac) placed on the statute by the Finance Act 2024 from 1 October 2024, which formally allows the CIT(E) to condone delay where reasonable cause is shown, and held that the matter therefore deserved to go back for fresh consideration on a condonation application rather than to be closed on limitation. At paragraph 8.2 it set out the directions of a coordinate bench in Narke Green Foundation, which emphasised a flexible and pragmatic approach to procedural law and the ascertainment of the bona fides of the explanation offered. Because the s.80G rejection rested only on the absence of a valid s.12AB registration, it fell with the restoration of the s.12AB application (paras 11 and 12). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We find that the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Finance Act, 2024 from 01.10.2024 made available on the statute a "Proviso" to Section 12A(1)(ac) that formally allows the ld.CIT(E) to condone the delay if reasonable cause is shown." The decision followed or applied Narke Green Foundation Charitable Institution, ITA No.1864/Mum/2025 (ITAT Mumbai) — directions reproduced and followed at para 8.2.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-01-20 and is reported as ITA No.6809/MUM/2025 and ITA No.6810/MUM/2025. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 12AB, section 12A(1)(ac), section 12A(1)(ac)(i), section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), section 12AB(1), section 12AB(1)(a), section 80G, section 80G(5), section 80G(5)(i), section 119, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Both appeals allowed for statistical purposes. The application was admittedly beyond the time limit even as extended to 30 June 2024 by Circular 7/2024, but the impugned order records no defect in the activities, objects or documents of the company, its bona fides are not in dispute and the delay does not prima facie appear deliberate. The matter is restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, the trust being at liberty to file an application for condonation of the delay, which the CIT(E) is to dispose of in accordance with the extant law after a reasonable opportunity of being heard; the consequential rejection of the s.80G application is set aside on the same terms (paras 8, 8.1, 8.3, 9 and 12). The additional ground on the wrong section code was left open (para 8.3). It arises in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Capital Gains Exemptions matters, on section 12AB, section 12A(1)(ac), section 12A(1)(ac)(i), section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), section 12AB(1), section 12AB(1)(a), section 80G, section 80G(5), section 80G(5)(i), section 119 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member and Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member — ITAT Mumbai "A" Bench. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Check whether the deadline so computed fell on or before 30 June 2024; if it did, the CIT(E) will treat Circular 7/2024 as the operative date and measure your delay from it. If the Form 10AB was filed on or after 1 October 2024, file a separate written condonation application invoking the proviso to s.12A(1)(ac) expressly, with an affidavit setting out the cause, and do not leave the point to be inferred from the covering letter. Put on record everything that shows the merits are unimpeached — audited accounts, activity reports, donor lists — because the Tribunal's route out was the absence of any adverse finding on objects, activities or documents. Check the section code under which Form 10A was originally filed; an existing trust filed under sub-clause (vi) instead of sub-clause (i) gets a three-year provisional registration instead of a five-year one, which manufactures the very deadline you are then said to have missed. Raise it as a separate ground. File the s.80G application on its own footing as well; the condonation proviso is in s.12A(1)(ac) and does not by its terms reach s.80G(5).
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator search (doc 142666269, confirmed as 'Advaya Charitable Foundation (Now BTG ... vs CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai on 20 January, 2026') returns nothing. A name probe surfaced two later orders - Aarna Foundation v ITO, Exemption Ward-1, Raipur (ITAT Raipur, 8 May 2026) and Ram Kapur Charitable Trust v CIT(E), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai, 13 May 2026) - and the Aarna order was opened and read. It does NOT cite this order. What it cites, and what its Bench adopts, is a different and earlier decision of the same name: 'Advaya Charitable Foundation (now BTG Advaya Charitable Foundation) v. CIT (2024) 207 ITD 633 (Kol.)(Trib.)'. Practitioners should keep the two apart - the 2024 Kolkata decision is the one being followed on liberal condonation, not this 20 January 2026 Mumbai order, which remains uncited. Nothing overruling, doubting or distinguishing it was found, and no appeal to a High Court against it is disclosed on the record searched. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The paragraph numbering of the order is irregular and I transcribed the whole of it to establish this: it runs 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6 (there is no 4.5), 4.7, then jumps to 7, 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 9, then 10, 11, 12 for the second appeal, and the concluding line is numbered 8 again. Paragraph 8.2 reproduces a coordinate-bench order in Narke Green Foundation (ITA No.1864/Mum/2025); the paragraphs 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 and 6 appearing inside that extract are that order's, not this one's, and must not be cited as paragraphs of this order. The order describes the amending statute as the "Finance Act, 2024"; the departmental text of s.12A (page /w/section-12a, Year 2026, heading "Conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12") carries footnote 43 attributing the condonation proviso to Act No. 15 of 2024 — the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 — with effect from 1-10-2024. The order also records the assessee's argument by reference to "12AC(1)(i)" and "12AC(1)", which are slips for s.12A(1)(ac). This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Both appeals allowed for statistical purposes. The application was admittedly beyond the time limit even as extended to 30 June 2024 by Circular 7/2024, but the impugned order records no defect in the activities, objects or documents of the company, its bona fides are not in dispute and the delay does not prima facie appear deliberate. The matter is restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, the trust being at liberty to file an application for condonation of the delay, which the CIT(E) is to dispose of in accordance with the extant law after a reasonable opportunity of being heard; the consequential rejection of the s.80G application is set aside on the same terms (paras 8, 8.1, 8.3, 9 and 12). The additional ground on the wrong section code was left open (para 8.3).
TaxSphere, “Advaya Charitable Foundation v CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/advaya-charitable-foundation-form-10ab-delay-12a-condonation-proviso/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
How long does registration under s.12AB now run, is the ten-year period for small trusts real, and is there still any way to save a late Form 10A or Form 10AB?
Form 10 was 51 days late because our accountant left mid-year, but it was on the file before the return was processed. The Commissioner still refused to condone. What now?
The PCIT cancelled my registration under s.12AB(4) for a specified violation resting entirely on an addition made in assessment. The Tribunal has since deleted that addition. Does the cancellation survive?
My Form 10AB for final approval under s.80G was rejected for a delay of two days and the CIT(E) says he has no power to condone it for 80G. Is that right, and is there a way round?
