Iaspire Mind Foundation vs CIT, Exemptions Ward, Faridabad

ITA No. 7466/Del/2025:

'1. That the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh, has erred both in law and on facts in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on the ground that registration under Section 12AB was not granted, without examining the merits of the Appellant's charitable nature and activities.

2.

That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) failed to appreciate that the Appellant is a genuine charitable institution engaged in education and social welfare activities, duly constituted under law, and that non-grant of Section 12AB registration due to procedural non-compliance cannot automatically disentitle approval under Section 80G(5).

3.

That the order of rejection is mechanical, non-speaking, and violative of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was provided to the Appellant to explain its position or submit documents demonstrating eligibility under Section 80G(5).

4.

That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) has failed to appreciate that the legislative intent behind Section 80G is to encourage donations to genuine charitable organizations, and not to deny such benefit on technical procedural lapses.

5.

That the Ld. CIT (Exemption) ought to have either kept the 80G application pending till disposal of the 12A registration appeal or remanded it for reconsideration instead of rejecting it summarily.

6.

That the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) is unjust, arbitrary, and against the spirit of the beneficial provisions of Sections 12A and 80G of the Act.

7.

That the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA Nos. 124 & 125/Lkw/2025 titled as M/s Shri Shivbachan Sewa Sansthan Versus The CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow was pleased to grant of registration under Section 80G of the Act, since Id. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow rejected the application filed by the assessee for grant of registration on the basis of the same aforesaid contradictions in the application and replies filed by the assessee-trust.

Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Id. CIT(Exemptions) to hear the matter afresh on merits with respect to application for grant of registration under Section 80G of the Act. Copy of Judgement of Hon'ble ITAT dated 26.08.2025 is marked and annexed herein as Annexure 7.

8.

That the present Appeal is made bona fide and in the interest of justice."

ITA No. 7467/Del/2025:

'1. That the teamed Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration of the Company under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the applicant failed to provide certain documents and evidence, despite having responded promptly to the notice dated 10.11.2022 and submitted a detailed reply on 21.12.2022.

2.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in asserting the applicant company failed to submit documentary evidences with note on activities for e.g. photos, vouchers, bills of the expenses etc. of charitable or religious activities carried out in the last one year, towards fulfillment of aims & objects mentioned in the MoA, furnish an affidavit/undertaking to the effect that the institution is complying with all the requirements of law as are material for the purpose of its objects as enumerated in the MoA, furnish an undertaking that there will be no infringement to the 1st provision to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, final accounts for FY 2021-22 and furnish a comprehensive note on activities being conducted by the Company, which was contrary to the facts. The applicant had made every attempt to comply with the queries raised in the notice, including submitting relevant documents, albeit not including all the requested information due to unforeseen circumstances and internal procedural delays.

3.

That The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in law, in over-looking and in summarily rejecting and not considered, the tangible material submitted during the proceeding u/s 12AB of Income Tax Act. 1961.

4.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) failed to consider the provisions under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, which provide for an opportunity to the applicant Company to submit the required documentation, and that no adverse inference could have been drawn from the minor omissions in the documents submitted. It is submitted that these omissions should not be a sole reason for rejection of the application.

5.

That the applicant, in response to the notice dated 19.01.2023, did not receive the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay or any specific circumstances leading to the incomplete submission, which denied the applicant a fair chance to present a comprehensive case. The failure to respond within the time frame should not lead to rejection of the application, considering that the applicant Company had been diligent in its earlier communications.

6.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), in rejecting the application for registration, failed to apply the principles of natural justice by not allowing the applicant Company a reasonable opportunity to rectify the defects or submit the necessary documentary evidence. It is also relevant to note that the applicant Company was granted provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) in the past, and its activities during the provisional period had been in compliance with the conditions set out under die Income Tax Act, 1961.

7.

That the rejection order, in the absence of clear and sufficient evidence proving that the activities of the applicant Company are not genuine or in line with its objectives, is unjustified. The applicant Company has consistently adhered to the spirit of its charitable objectives and continues to maintain transparency in its operations.

8.

That the rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB fails to take into account the applicant's ongoing charitable activities and the steps it has undertaken to ensure the transparency and integrity of its financial reporting and activities, in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

9.

That the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA Nos. 124 &125/Lkw/2025 titled as M/s Shri Shivbachan Sewa Sansthan Versus The CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow was pleased to grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act, since Id. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow rejected the application filed by the assessee for grant of registration on the basis of the same aforesaid contradictions in the application and replies filed by the assessee-trust.

Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Id. CIT(Exemptions) to hear the matter afresh on merits with respect to application for grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. Copy of Judgement of Hon'ble ITAT dated 26.08.2025 is marked and annexed herein as Annexure 7."

To, The Hon'ble Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi, Respected Sir/Madam,

Subject: Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal against the Cancellation of Registration under Sections 12AB by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh.

The present application is being filed by IASPIRE MIND FOUNDATION for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, cancelling the registration of the company under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed on 13/03/2023 vide ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2022-23/1050694745(1).

The appeal is filed before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) beyond the prescribed time limit due to genuine reasons, which are explained hereunder.

GROUNDS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

(a) Inadvertent error on the part of the consultant:

i.

That the delay occurred primarily on account of a mistake and misunderstanding on the part of the concerned consultant who was assisting the Appellant- Company in the process of obtaining registration and approval under the aforesaid provisions.

ii.

The Appellant-Company had initially filed an application for provisional registration and thereafter filed an application for regular registration under Section 12AB of the Act before the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 13.03.2023 on account of certain discrepancies and non-furnishing of some documents.

iii.

The concerned consultant, due to lack of proper understanding of the legal position, was under the bona fide belief that upon rejection of the application for regular registration, the correct course of action was to file a fresh application for registration rather than to prefer an appeal.

iv.

Acting upon this mistaken belief, the consultant advised the Appellant- Company to again file Form No. 10AB for fresh registration. However, the online functionality of the income tax portal did not allow the Appellant to refile the application after rejection.

v.

It was only later, upon realizing the error and after obtaining appropriate advice from another professional, that the Appellant-Company came to know that the proper remedy was to file an appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal against the rejection orders passed by the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh, under Section 12AB of the Act.

vi.

Immediately thereafter, the Appellant-Company took steps to prepare and file the present appeal. The delay thus occurred due to the inadvertent mistake and wrong advice of the earlier consultant, and not due to any negligence, inaction, or deliberate lapse on the part of the Appellant-Company.

vii.

It is well settled in law that when delay is caused due to bona fide and reasonable causes, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA Nos. 124 & 125/Lkw/2025 titled as M/s Shri Shivbachan Sewa Sansthan Versus The CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow in herein it was held that a liberal approach must be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay to advance the cause of justice.

viii.

The Appellant-Company is a non-profit organization working for the cause of education and social welfare. The delay being procedural and unintentional, the Appellant prays that the same may kindly be condoned so that the matter can be decided on merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.

(b) Lack of proper guidance to Pursue the Appeal:

The Company is a charitable organization working with limited resources. Non-filing of appeal with the Appellate Tribunal was an inadvertence omission and lack of proper guidance in finding legal counsel, the company was unable to engage the services of a lawyer to file the appeal on time. The management had to make certain arrangements to seek professional help, which caused a delay in the filing process.

PRAYER

In light of the above facts, the appellant humbly requests the Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal and grant an opportunity to the trust to present its case on merit. The delay is purely due to the above-mentioned genuine reasons and the Company has acted in good faith to file the appeal as soon as the circumstances permitted.

"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.

And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

1.

Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2.

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."

'250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal-

(a)

the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;"

'5. In view of the above discussions, the present application of the assessee filed in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act is disposed of as being deficient in factual evidences in the absence of the requisite submissions of the assessee in response to the letter issued by this office. This is despite the granting of at least three opportunities as above. It is pertinent to mention here that it is mandated by the provisions of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act that where the trust or institution has been provisionally registered u/s 12AB it has to make an application for registration u/s 12AB within six months of commencement of activities. In the absence of any submission from the applicant it is not possible to ascertain the objects and activities carried out by the applicant. Accordingly the application filed by the applicant for registration u/s 12AB of the Act is hereby rejected, which rejection and consequent lack of registration will apply from this F.Y. 2022-23 onwards and also supersedes any registration granted u/s 12AB or 12AA of the Act by any authority at any earlier time."