Charitable registration delay treated as directory, with delayed 80G approval application remitted for merits consideration.

A short delay in filing an appeal was condoned because the explanation based on transit of papers and the managing trustee's health was accepted and no serious Revenue objection was raised. In the charitable registration context, the Tribunal treated the time limit for filing Form No. 10AB for final approval under section 80G(5) as directory on the facts, relying on the amended registration scheme, relaxation circulars, continuing genuine hardship, and the linkage between 12A and 80G registration. The delayed application was therefore not rejected on a technical ground, but remitted to the CIT(E) for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 22-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the delayed filing of the application for final approval under section 80G could be rejected merely as belated, or ought to be treated as a valid application and considered on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the 22-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was explained as arising from transit of papers and the health condition of the managing trustee. The explanation was found adequate, the delay was short, and no serious objection was raised by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the delayed filing of the application for final approval under section 80G could be rejected merely as belated, or ought to be treated as a valid application and considered on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the statutory timeline for filing Form No. 10AB under section 80G(5) in the facts of the case was procedural and should be construed as directory, not mandatory. It relied on the scheme of the amended charitable registration regime, the relaxation circulars issued under section 119, the concept of continuing genuine hardship, and the close interrelationship between 12A and 80G registrations. The Tribunal followed earlier coordinate-bench decisions and held that a delayed application should not be rejected on a purely technical ground.

Conclusion: The delayed application was directed to be treated as filed under the relevant provision and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for decision on merits in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the limited question of maintainability and the impugned rejection was set aside for fresh consideration on merits, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In the amended charitable-registration regime, the time limit for filing a delayed approval application under section 80G(5) may be treated as directory where genuine hardship is shown, and such an application should not be rejected solely on technical delay.

---