My Form 10AB under s.80G(5) was one day late and the Commissioner rejected it, saying he has no power to condone. Is a delay of one day really fatal?
No. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for a fresh order to be passed without taking the delay into account, holding that a delay of one day in filing Form 10AB cannot in itself be made a ground to reject the application. The Court did not decide the Commissioner's contention that he has no power to condone delay at all — it held only that this delay could not justify the rejection.
Decided by the High Court (Ritu Bahri J and Manisha Batra J — High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) on 2023-05-31, reported as CWP-10214-2023 (O&M). It bears on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 119 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Deductions & Disallowances matters.
The value of this decision is its bluntness and the forum. The Revenue's stand, filed on affidavit by the Commissioner, was the familiar one: the last date was 30 September 2022, the application came on 1 October 2022, and the Commissioner has no power to condone delay in filing Form 10AB. The Court did not engage with the jurisdictional argument; it treated the disproportion between a one-day delay and the loss of approval as sufficient. That makes it a useful authority for a marginal delay and a weak one for a substantial delay, and it does not lay down that the Commissioner has a condonation power. Practitioners should note what has changed since: for s.12AB registration a statutory condonation power now exists in the proviso to s.12A(1)(ac) from 1 October 2024, and for s.80G approval the route is clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) from the same date. The circulars this judgment turns on — 12/2021, 16/2021 and 8/2022, with 30 September 2022 as the last date — were superseded by later extensions culminating in Circular 7/2024.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The trust was created on 13 February 2008. It applied in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) for approval. By order dated 28 April 2023 the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh rejected the application on the ground that it had not been filed within the prescribed time, referring to Circular No. 12 of 2021 dated 25 June 2021, Circular No. 16 of 2021 dated 29 August 2021 and Circular No. 8 of 2022 dated 31 March 2022, by which the time for filing had been extended. When notice of motion was issued on 11 May 2023 it was observed that the last date for filing the application was 30 September 2022 and that the trust had applied on 1 October 2022. The Commissioner filed a short reply by affidavit dated 23 May 2023 taking the stand that the petitioner was bound to apply on or before 30 September 2022 and that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh has no power to condone the delay in filing Form 10AB.
The writ petition was allowed. Since the delay was only of one day in filing Form 10AB, that could not in itself be made a ground to reject the application; the order dated 28 April 2023 was set aside and the matter remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order without taking into account the delay in filing Form 10AB.
The Court set out the Commissioner's order and the circulars on which it relied, the observation made at the notice of motion stage that the last date was 30 September 2022 and the application was made on 1 October 2022, and the Commissioner's affidavit denying any power to condone. It then decided the case on the single point of proportion: the delay being of one day only, that could not in itself be a ground for rejecting the application. It did not adjudicate the Commissioner's contention that no power to condone exists, and it did not direct that approval be granted — the remand is for a fresh order on the footing that the delay is to be left out of account.
In the present case, since the delay is only of one day in filing Form 10AB and this in itself cannot be made a ground to reject applicaton of the petitioner.
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 WhatsAppNo. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for a fresh order to be passed without taking the delay into account, holding that a delay of one day in filing Form 10AB cannot in itself be made a ground to reject the application. The Court did not decide the Commissioner's contention that he has no power to condone delay at all — it held only that this delay could not justify the rejection. This was decided by the High Court (Ritu Bahri J and Manisha Batra J — High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) and bears on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 119 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as CWP-10214-2023 (O&M). The value of this decision is its bluntness and the forum. The Revenue's stand, filed on affidavit by the Commissioner, was the familiar one: the last date was 30 September 2022, the application came on 1 October 2022, and the Commissioner has no power to condone delay in filing Form 10AB. The Court did not engage with the jurisdictional argument; it treated the disproportion between a one-day delay and the loss of approval as sufficient. That makes it a useful authority for a marginal delay and a weak one for a substantial delay, and it does not lay down that the Commissioner has a condonation power. Practitioners should note what has changed since: for s.12AB registration a statutory condonation power now exists in the proviso to s.12A(1)(ac) from 1 October 2024, and for s.80G approval the route is clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) from the same date. The circulars this judgment turns on — 12/2021, 16/2021 and 8/2022, with 30 September 2022 as the last date — were superseded by later extensions culminating in Circular 7/2024. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Where the delay is a matter of days, lead with proportion rather than with jurisdiction — that is the ground on which this petition succeeded.
The trust was created on 13 February 2008. It applied in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) for approval. By order dated 28 April 2023 the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh rejected the application on the ground that it had not been filed within the prescribed time, referring to Circular No. 12 of 2021 dated 25 June 2021, Circular No. 16 of 2021 dated 29 August 2021 and Circular No. 8 of 2022 dated 31 March 2022, by which the time for filing had been extended. When notice of motion was issued on 11 May 2023 it was observed that the last date for filing the application was 30 September 2022 and that the trust had applied on 1 October 2022. The Commissioner filed a short reply by affidavit dated 23 May 2023 taking the stand that the petitioner was bound to apply on or before 30 September 2022 and that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh has no power to condone the delay in filing Form 10AB. The matter was decided on 2023-05-31 by the High Court (Ritu Bahri J and Manisha Batra J — High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was allowed. Since the delay was only of one day in filing Form 10AB, that could not in itself be made a ground to reject the application; the order dated 28 April 2023 was set aside and the matter remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order without taking into account the delay in filing Form 10AB.
The Court set out the Commissioner's order and the circulars on which it relied, the observation made at the notice of motion stage that the last date was 30 September 2022 and the application was made on 1 October 2022, and the Commissioner's affidavit denying any power to condone. It then decided the case on the single point of proportion: the delay being of one day only, that could not in itself be a ground for rejecting the application. It did not adjudicate the Commissioner's contention that no power to condone exists, and it did not direct that approval be granted — the remand is for a fresh order on the footing that the delay is to be left out of account. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the present case, since the delay is only of one day in filing Form 10AB and this in itself cannot be made a ground to reject applicaton of the petitioner."
It was decided by the High Court on 2023-05-31 and is reported as CWP-10214-2023 (O&M). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 80G, section 80G(5), 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. The writ petition was allowed. Since the delay was only of one day in filing Form 10AB, that could not in itself be made a ground to reject the application; the order dated 28 April 2023 was set aside and the matter remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order without taking into account the delay in filing Form 10AB. It arises in Charitable Trusts & Exemption and Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 119 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Ritu Bahri J and Manisha Batra J — High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 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. Compute the last date under the circular actually in force when your application was due, and name it; the Court worked from the Commissioner's own reliance on Circulars 12/2021, 16/2021 and 8/2022. Do not read this judgment as holding that the Commissioner has power to condone delay under s.80G; the Revenue's contrary stand was recorded and left undecided. For a current application, use the statutory routes instead of a writ: the condonation proviso to s.12A(1)(ac) for s.12AB registration, clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to s.80G(5) for s.80G approval. Where the Commissioner rejects on limitation alone without reaching the merits, ask for the remand to be on terms that the fresh order be passed without taking the delay into account, which is the form of relief granted here.
Still good law. A citator search on citedby:172225897 returns 6 documents, four of which are unrelated Punjab & Haryana land-acquisition matters. The two that matter are the Amritsar Tribunal's orders of 21 April 2025 in Master Sansar Chand Baru Memorial v CIT. There the Bench applied this judgment in its own operative direction at para 9.4, remitting the matter to the CIT(Exemptions) 'to consider the application of the assessee u/s 10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, afresh, taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Shri Anandpur Satsang Trust vs CIT (Exemption) Chandigarh, (supra)', read with CBDT Circular 7/2024. A name search returns only three documents in all and discloses no Supreme Court matter and no contrary view on delay in filing Form 10AB. 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.
This is a short oral judgment with no numbered paragraphs; the quotation is therefore located by description. The misspelling "applicaton" appears in the report and is reproduced exactly as it stands — it was identical on both passes, which is what satisfied me the text is the report's and not a rendering. The Commissioner's affidavit as recorded contains the statement "The petitioner has 12 months to file Form 10AB", which does not sit easily with the rest of the order and which I have not relied on. The Court records that the last date for filing was 30 September 2022 and the application was made on 1 October 2022. The judgment predates Circular 7/2024 and predates the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024. 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.
The writ petition was allowed. Since the delay was only of one day in filing Form 10AB, that could not in itself be made a ground to reject the application; the order dated 28 April 2023 was set aside and the matter remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order without taking into account the delay in filing Form 10AB.
TaxSphere, “Shri Anandpur Satsang Trust v CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/anandpur-satsang-trust-one-day-delay-form-10ab-80g/ (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.
My Form 10AB was rejected before April 2024 because it was late or filed under the wrong section code. Is that rejection the end of the matter?
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?
I donated to a trust that runs schools and hospitals but also has an object of maintaining places of worship. Do I still get the section 80G deduction?
My trust filed Form 10BD for the whole financial year although its s.80G provisional approval began mid-year, so Forms 10BE were generated for pre-approval donations too. The CIT (Exemption) has refused final registration and approval on that ground. Is that a valid reason?
