AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the order dated 30.03.2026 and 31.03.2026 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(E)] pertaining to Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2021-22, 2024-25 and 2026-27. Since these appeals were heard together, and, therefore, the same are decided by this common order for convenience.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6014/Del/2026.
“1.That the Ld. PCIT/CIT erred in law and on facts in granting provisional registration in Form No. 10AC u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) on 27.05.2021 instead of regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i), ignoring the fact that the trust was previously registered u/s 12A prior to 01.04.2021 and copy of registration u/s 12A dated 27.09.1983, in the format accepted by the department in other cases, was also provided with application in Form 10Adated 07.10.2020.
2.That the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow erred in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154 vide order dated 30.03.2026.
3.(a) That each ground of appeal is without prejudice to each other. (b) that the consequent tax levied, interest charged and the penalty imposed unwarranted and excessive at any rate, is (c) that the appellant craves for the right to add, amend and alter any or all of the grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing”
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6015/Del/2026.
“1.That the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow erred in law and on facts in adopting contradictory interpretations, firstly by treating the application dated 12.05.2023 filed by the assessee as premature on the assumption that the registration was valid for five years and secondly by observing that the registration remained valid only from AY 2021-22 to AY 2023-24,thereby rendering the findings self-contradictory, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
2.That the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow erred in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154 vide order dated 31.03.2026.
3.That the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow fails to consider Circular No. 11 of 2022, which clarifies that "provisional registration" granted to old trusts must be read as "regular registration". So, appellant registration be treated as valid and maintainable u/s 12AB for AY 2021-22 to AY 2025-26.
4.(a) That each ground of appeal is without prejudice to each other. (b) that the consequent tax levied, interest charged and the penalty imposed is unwarranted and excessive at any rate, (c)that the appellant craves for the right to add, amend and alter any or all of the grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6016/Del/2026.
“1.That the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow made a foundational error in not giving proper effect of registration given by the CIT way back in 1983 and treating the CIT order dated 27.09.1983 merely as a letter communicating receipt/acknowledgement of application for registration and not as registration itself and in further demanding a "certificate" against the prevailing provisions of Act.
2.That the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow conclusion in treating assessee's application in Form 10AB dt. 26.9.2025 as barred by limitation is bad and against facts and law.
3.That the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow conclusion that the assessee's application in Form 10AB dated 26.09.2025 was under wrong clause is wrong and against the facts and law and a result of the department's own doing.
4.That as against the express provisions of the binding circulars of the Board and the binding precedents the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow failed to consider that the registration granted in Form No. 10AC on 27.05.2021 was effective for 5 years for the renewal of which the application dated 26.09.2025 was made.
5.That the Ld. CIT (E), Lucknow committed grave error in taking two opposite positions; first in his order dated 02.11.2023 by treating the assessee's renewal application dated 12.05.2023 as premature, as opposed to the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 treating the application dated 26.09.2025 as time barred.
6.(a) That each ground of appeal is without prejudice to each other. (b)That the consequent tax levied, interest charged and the penalty imposed is unwarranted and excessive at any rate, (c)That the appellant craves for the right to add, amend and alter any or all of the grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”
All the three appeals effectively pertain to only one issue viz, refusal of CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee u/s 12AB and, therefore, these are being disposed off vide a consolidated order.
Brief facts are that the assessee filed an application in form 10A on 7.10.2020 for registration u/s 12AB under the new regime. The assessee was granted provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) for A.Y. 2021-22 to 2023-24 in form 10AC on 27.05.2021. While granting provisional registration, no cognizance was taken of the fact that the assessee was already registered vide registration dated 27.09.1983 granted by the CIT, Meerut.
Since the provisional registration was granted only upto A.Y. 2023-24, the assessee filed application for renewal / grant of regular registration in Form 10AB on 12.05.2023. Vide order dated 2.11.2023, CIT(E) rejected the application for statistical purposes, on account of the same being premature on the assumption that the provisional registration already granted was valid for 5 years. He dismissed the application as non-maintainable noting that no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.
Subsequently, the assessee again applied on 26.09.2025, for renewal of registration in form 10AB as the period of 5 years was due to expire on 31.03.2026. However, vide order dated 30.03.2026, the then CIT(E) rejected the application stating that the application was time barred and also that the documentary evidence of prior registration in the old regime had not been furnished. Subsequently, application filed u/s 154 for rectification of the registration granted earlier from ‘provisional’ to ‘regular’ was also rejected vide order dated 30.03.2026.
Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the chronology of events and supporting documentary evidences placed on record. It appears that there has been confusion on the part of the Revenue, regarding the provisions of registration under the new regime. Since, the application filed on 12.05.2023 was rejected as premature, the assessee cannot be faulted for filing belated application subsequently since he had initially filed the application for registration well before the expiry of the provisional registration. Once the same was rejected as non-maintainable being premature, he duly applied again before the expiry of 5 years as had been conveyed by the rejection order dated 2.11.2023. At this stage, the incumbent CIT(E) thought otherwise and held the application to be time barred.
We further note that the Trust was registered in the earlier regime and a copy of the registration granted by CIT, Meerut on 22.09.1983 has been placed on record.
In view of above stated peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view, the assessee was eligible for regular registration, at the initial stage only instead of provisional registration in this case and due to the conflicting positions taken by the two CsIT(E), the assessee has been made to suffer for no fault or delay on its part.
We, therefore, direct the CIT(E) to consider the application afresh on merits and grant regular registration after giving the assessee due opportunity to furnish requisite details.
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.