2025 (7) TMI 657 - AT - Income Tax

Registration application rejection overturned as tax authority has power to condone delay under Section 12A

Shree Khamlay Mataji Trust Pansar Versus CIT (Exemption) Ahmedabad

Shree Khamlay Mataji Trust Pansar Versus CIT (Exemption) Ahmedabad - TMI The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in this appeal are:Whether the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed beyond the prescribed time limit, can be entertained or must be rejected as nonmaintainable due to delay.Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had the power to condone the delay in filing the application at the time of passing the impugned order.Whether the amendment to Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act, effective from 01.10.2024, conferring power on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to condone delay, applies retrospectively to pending applications and should be applied in the present case.What procedural steps should be followed in light of the amended provisions regarding condonation of delay in filing applications under Section 12A(1)(ac)(v).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Timeliness of Application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(v) and Consequences of DelayThe Income Tax Act mandates that an application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(v), which pertains to charitable or religious trusts, must be filed within thirty days from the date of adoption or modification of the trust deed. This time limit is prescribed to ensure prompt compliance and administrative efficiency.In the present case, the Trust had modified its trust deed, and the Charity Commissioner approved the modification on 25.08.2023. The thirty-day period for filing the application thus expired on 24.09.2023. However, the Trust filed its application belatedly on 12.06.2024, well beyond the prescribed period.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application on the ground of delay, holding it nonmaintainable as the application was not filed within the statutory time limit. At the time of passing the impugned order, the CIT(Exemption) held that he lacked the power to condone the delay.2. Power to Condon Delay: Pre-Amendment and Post-Amendment ScenarioPrior to the amendment effective from 01.10.2024, the provisions of the Act did not expressly empower the Commissioner or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to condone delay in filing applications under Section 12A(1)(ac)(v). This resulted in a rigid regime where any delay, irrespective of cause, led to outright rejection.However, the Act was amended by inserting a proviso below Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi), effective from 01.10.2024, which states:'Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in subclauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time;'This amendment introduces a discretionary power to condone delay, contingent on the existence of reasonable cause. It aims to provide flexibility and fairness, allowing genuine cases of delay to be considered on merits rather than being rejected outright.3. Application of Amended Provision to Pending CasesThe Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed after the amendment came into force. The amendment is procedural in nature and, therefore, applicable to all pending applications, including the present case. The CIT(Exemption), having the power to condone delay, ought to have afforded the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and then decide the application on merits.The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(Exemption) should not have rejected the application outright without considering the possibility of condonation under the amended provision.4. Procedural Directions and Opportunity of HearingThe Tribunal directed the matter to be remanded to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with specific instructions:The assessee is to file a condonation application explaining the reasons for delay in filing the registration application.The CIT(Exemption) should allow a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the question of condonation of delay.After considering the explanation and hearing the assessee, the CIT(Exemption) should decide whether to condone the delay and thereafter decide the application for registration on merits.This approach ensures compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory mandates under the amended law.5. Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe assessee's representative argued that the delay should be condoned in view of the newly conferred powers on the CIT(Exemption) and that the application should be considered on merits. The Revenue did not oppose remanding the matter for consideration in light of the amendment.The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the amended provision should be applied to the pending case and that the CIT(Exemption) must exercise the condonation power before rejecting the application. The Tribunal rejected the earlier rigid approach of outright rejection without condonation.Conclusions on IssuesThe Tribunal concluded that the application filed beyond the prescribed time limit could not be summarily rejected post-amendment without considering condonation. The CIT(Exemption) had the statutory power to condone delay effective from 01.10.2024 and must exercise this power after hearing the assessee.Significant HoldingsThe Tribunal stated verbatim:'Provided that where the application is filed beyond the time allowed in subclauses (i) to (vi), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such delay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within time;''Therefore, the ld. CIT(E) should have allowed an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing of the application. Being a procedural amendment, this amended provision was applicable to all pending applications.''The matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to first consider the condonation application of the assessee and thereafter decide the application of the assessee for grant of registration.'Core principles established include:Procedural amendments conferring power to condone delay apply to pending cases and must be applied by the authorities exercising such powers.Delay in filing applications under Section 12A(1)(ac)(v) can be condoned if reasonable cause is shown, preventing automatic rejection.Natural justice requires that the assessee be given an opportunity to explain delay before the exercise of discretion to condone or reject.Final determinations on each issue are:The application filed beyond the statutory time limit was rightly identified as delayed but could not be rejected outright after the amendment.The CIT(Exemption) had the power to condone delay from 01.10.2024 and must consider this power in pending cases.The matter is remanded for the assessee to explain the delay and for the CIT(Exemption) to decide on condonation and then on registration application merits.