Our Form 10AB went in 38 days after the Charity Commissioner's order instead of 30, and the CIT (Exemptions) rejected it on that ground and on how we had spent our money. Is there a way back?
Yes, though what you get is a remand and not registration. The Mumbai Tribunal held that the delay should not be visited on the trust — the Charity Commissioner's order had reached it late, and measured from receipt the application was within thirty days — and that the authority must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It also rejected the second ground, holding that a scholarship paid in India, in rupees, to an Indian student who then studies abroad is not an application of income outside India. It did not itself pass an order condoning the delay: it set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s order, restored the application to him to be decided on its merits, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
Decided by the ITAT (Pawan Singh, Judicial Member and Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member) on 2026-01-27, reported as ITA No. 7359/Mum/2025 (ITAT Mumbai Bench 'F'). It bears on section 12AB, section 12A, section 11, section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Charitable Trusts & Exemption matters.
Most Form 10AB refusals are refusals on the calendar rather than on the merits, and the thirty-day windows in s.12A(1)(ac) are easy to miss when the trigger is an order of another authority that arrives late. This shows delay being removed as a ground of refusal on appeal, without the trust first being sent off to seek condonation under s.119(2)(b) — but it also shows the limit of that relief: the Tribunal remanded rather than condoning the delay by its own order, so the Commissioner decides the application afresh. It also shows a registration application being wrongly refused on a question about the application of income.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The trust applied for registration in Form 10AB on 4 February 2025. The application followed an order of the Charity Commissioner dated 29 November 2024, which the trust received on 17 January 2025; measured from the date of the order the application was 38 days late, measured from receipt it was within thirty days. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the application on three grounds: the delay beyond thirty days; clauses in the trust deed said to permit application of funds outside India; and a scholarship of Rs 2,00,000 paid to an Indian student for study at Washington University, which the Commissioner treated as expenditure outside India in violation of s.11(1)(c). The trust had also taken steps to amend its objects to remove any doubt about application outside India.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the application restored. On the delay of 38 days, explained by the date of receipt of the Charity Commissioner's order, the Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalised and that the authority must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach (para 6); it did not pass a separate order condoning the delay. The Commissioner's view that a payment made in India for study outside India equates to expenditure incurred outside India did not inspire confidence, particularly where the scholarship was granted to an Indian citizen in Indian rupees; the grant was directed to be treated as a permissible application and not a violation of s.11(1)(c) (para 7). The impugned order was set aside and the application in Form 10AB restored to the CIT (Exemptions) to be reconsidered and decided on its merits (para 8), the appeal being allowed for statistical purposes (para 9).
On the delay, the Tribunal recorded that the application had in fact been filed within thirty days of receipt of the order, quoted the Bombay High Court in Columbia Global Center in India on the discretionary power under s.119(2)(b) being conferred to avoid genuine hardship, and then held in its own words that an explained delay of 38 days should not be visited on the assessee and that a liberal approach was called for (para 6). On the foreign application point it followed its own decision in R. Mangaldas Charitable Trust, that financial assistance provided in India in Indian rupees to an Indian student is an application of income for educational purposes in India even if the student uses it abroad, and referred to Jamsetji Tata Trust v. JCIT (E) to the same effect (para 7). Having removed both grounds, it declined to grant registration itself and instead set aside the impugned order and restored the application for a decision on the merits (para 8), allowing the appeal for statistical purposes (para 9).
we, thus, are of the opinion that, the delay of 38 days, that too explained, to be on account of delay in receipt of Order from Charity Commissioner, the assessee should not be penalized for that, even otherwise the authority needs to adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach to while condoning the delay.
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, though what you get is a remand and not registration. The Mumbai Tribunal held that the delay should not be visited on the trust — the Charity Commissioner's order had reached it late, and measured from receipt the application was within thirty days — and that the authority must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach. It also rejected the second ground, holding that a scholarship paid in India, in rupees, to an Indian student who then studies abroad is not an application of income outside India. It did not itself pass an order condoning the delay: it set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s order, restored the application to him to be decided on its merits, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. This was decided by the ITAT (Pawan Singh, Judicial Member and Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member) and bears on section 12AB, section 12A, section 11, section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 7359/Mum/2025 (ITAT Mumbai Bench 'F'). Most Form 10AB refusals are refusals on the calendar rather than on the merits, and the thirty-day windows in s.12A(1)(ac) are easy to miss when the trigger is an order of another authority that arrives late. This shows delay being removed as a ground of refusal on appeal, without the trust first being sent off to seek condonation under s.119(2)(b) — but it also shows the limit of that relief: the Tribunal remanded rather than condoning the delay by its own order, so the Commissioner decides the application afresh. It also shows a registration application being wrongly refused on a question about the application of income. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Fix the date on which the triggering event actually reached the trust — the date the Charity Commissioner's or other authority's order was received, not the date it bears — and put that on record with proof of receipt.
The trust applied for registration in Form 10AB on 4 February 2025. The application followed an order of the Charity Commissioner dated 29 November 2024, which the trust received on 17 January 2025; measured from the date of the order the application was 38 days late, measured from receipt it was within thirty days. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the application on three grounds: the delay beyond thirty days; clauses in the trust deed said to permit application of funds outside India; and a scholarship of Rs 2,00,000 paid to an Indian student for study at Washington University, which the Commissioner treated as expenditure outside India in violation of s.11(1)(c). The trust had also taken steps to amend its objects to remove any doubt about application outside India. The matter was decided on 2026-01-27 by the ITAT (Pawan Singh, Judicial Member and Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the application restored. On the delay of 38 days, explained by the date of receipt of the Charity Commissioner's order, the Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalised and that the authority must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach (para 6); it did not pass a separate order condoning the delay. The Commissioner's view that a payment made in India for study outside India equates to expenditure incurred outside India did not inspire confidence, particularly where the scholarship was granted to an Indian citizen in Indian rupees; the grant was directed to be treated as a permissible application and not a violation of s.11(1)(c) (para 7). The impugned order was set aside and the application in Form 10AB restored to the CIT (Exemptions) to be reconsidered and decided on its merits (para 8), the appeal being allowed for statistical purposes (para 9).
On the delay, the Tribunal recorded that the application had in fact been filed within thirty days of receipt of the order, quoted the Bombay High Court in Columbia Global Center in India on the discretionary power under s.119(2)(b) being conferred to avoid genuine hardship, and then held in its own words that an explained delay of 38 days should not be visited on the assessee and that a liberal approach was called for (para 6). On the foreign application point it followed its own decision in R. Mangaldas Charitable Trust, that financial assistance provided in India in Indian rupees to an Indian student is an application of income for educational purposes in India even if the student uses it abroad, and referred to Jamsetji Tata Trust v. JCIT (E) to the same effect (para 7). Having removed both grounds, it declined to grant registration itself and instead set aside the impugned order and restored the application for a decision on the merits (para 8), allowing the appeal for statistical purposes (para 9). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "we, thus, are of the opinion that, the delay of 38 days, that too explained, to be on account of delay in receipt of Order from Charity Commissioner, the assessee should not be penalized for that, even otherwise the authority needs to adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach to while condoning the delay." The decision followed or applied Columbia Global Center in India v. ITO (Exemptions), Writ Petition (L) No. 23170 of 2025 (Bombay High Court), decided 7 October 2025 — quoted at para 6; R. Mangaldas Charitable Trust v. CIT (E) (ITAT Mumbai) — followed at para 7; Jamsetji Tata Trust v. JCIT (E), ITA No. 7006/Mum/2013, order dated 26 March 2014 — referred to at para 7.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-01-27 and is reported as ITA No. 7359/Mum/2025 (ITAT Mumbai Bench 'F'). 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, section 11, section 119(2)(b), 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 appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the application restored. On the delay of 38 days, explained by the date of receipt of the Charity Commissioner's order, the Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalised and that the authority must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach (para 6); it did not pass a separate order condoning the delay. The Commissioner's view that a payment made in India for study outside India equates to expenditure incurred outside India did not inspire confidence, particularly where the scholarship was granted to an Indian citizen in Indian rupees; the grant was directed to be treated as a permissible application and not a violation of s.11(1)(c) (para 7). The impugned order was set aside and the application in Form 10AB restored to the CIT (Exemptions) to be reconsidered and decided on its merits (para 8), the appeal being allowed for statistical purposes (para 9). It arises in Charitable Trusts & Exemption matters, on section 12AB, section 12A, section 11, section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Pawan Singh, Judicial Member and Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member. 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. Appeal the rejection to the Tribunal rather than only filing a fresh application; the Tribunal here set aside the rejection and restored the application, leaving the Commissioner to decide it afresh on the merits. In parallel, consider an application under s.119(2)(b) for condonation, and check whether any CBDT circular extending the time for Form 10A or Form 10AB covers your case. If the refusal rests on how the trust has spent its income rather than on its objects or the genuineness of its activities, say so expressly; that is a merits question and, on this reasoning, not a ground for refusing registration. Where the objects clause is capable of being read as permitting application outside India, consider amending it, as this trust did, to close the argument off.
Still good law. Decided 27 January 2026; no later treatment was located. It is a Tribunal decision on its own facts and does not decide the wider question whether a Tribunal or a Commissioner may condone delay in Form 10AB beyond the periods allowed by the CBDT's extension circulars — the delay here was short and, measured from receipt of the Charity Commissioner's order, within the statutory window in any event. The decisions relied on at paragraphs 6 and 7 were not separately retrieved and are recorded as the order records them. 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.
One fetch of the Indian Kanoon cause title spelled the appellant 'Jhaverbhai Patel Reserch Centre' and another 'Research Centre'; which spelling the page carries could not be settled, and the name is given here in the ordinary spelling. The order contains obvious typing errors ('for 10AB' for 'Form 10AB', 'om merits' for 'on merits', and a missing word in 'liberal and justice oriented approach to while condoning the delay'), which are preserved in the quotation. Paragraph 6 also carries a quotation from the Bombay High Court in Columbia Global Center in India v. ITO (Exemptions), and paragraph 7 a quotation from the Tribunal's own earlier decision in R. Mangaldas Charitable Trust; neither is quoted here. No independent second source for this order was located, so the Indian Kanoon text is the only source. 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 appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the application restored. On the delay of 38 days, explained by the date of receipt of the Charity Commissioner's order, the Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalised and that the authority must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach (para 6); it did not pass a separate order condoning the delay. The Commissioner's view that a payment made in India for study outside India equates to expenditure incurred outside India did not inspire confidence, particularly where the scholarship was granted to an Indian citizen in Indian rupees; the grant was directed to be treated as a permissible application and not a violation of s.11(1)(c) (para 7). The impugned order was set aside and the application in Form 10AB restored to the CIT (Exemptions) to be reconsidered and decided on its merits (para 8), the appeal being allowed for statistical purposes (para 9).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
Our trust was formed weeks ago and has done nothing yet. Can registration be refused for that?
The CBDT rejected my condonation application without dealing with my reasons. Can I challenge that?
We treated a building's full cost as application of income. Can we also claim depreciation on it?