TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reason for rejecting the same. The Ld. CIT(E) further observed that the assessee had incurred the foreign expenses which is violation of section 11(1)(c) of the Act. Considering this, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR argued filed a paper book containing page 1 to 178 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR submitted the clarification for delay in application before the Ld. CIT(E), the relevant part of the submission is reproduced as below: "Clarification on Timing of Application 1. As per section 80G(5)(iii), an application for regular registration is to be made within six months of commencement of activities or at least six months before expiry of the provisional registration period, whichever is earlier. 2. In the instant case, the provisional registration was granted on 19.01.2023 in Form 10AC, valid up to AY 2025-26. Considering the extension granted by CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024, the application under Form 10AB should have been filed before June 2024. 3. The delay in filing the application in Form 10AB was purely unintentional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c requirement and timeline for filing Form 10AB did not come to the attention of the Company, nor was it advised by the consultant amidst these pressing priorities. Once the lapse was identified and appropriate professional guidance was obtained, the application in Form 10AB was promptly filed on 21.02.2025. The delay in filing Form 10AB was wholly unintentional and attributable solely to a bona fide oversight during a period of intensive compliance activity. It was not due to any mala fide intent or any attempt to misuse the exemption. In light of the above facts, it is humbly prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of substantial justice." 4. With regard to the delay in filing the said application, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the observations of the Ld. CIT(E) in the impugned order. The relevant extract from para 4.3 is reproduced as under: "Regarding the issue of delay in filing of application for regularisation of ovisional registration, the relevant para is reproduced as under. "2. In our case, the provisional registration was granted on 19.01.2023 in Form 10AC, valid up to AY 2025-26. Accordingly, the application unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held that compliance with statutory conditions, such as filing within the prescribed time is mandatory and cannot be relaxed, as exemption is a matter of legislative grace and available only upon strict fulfilment of the prescribed requirements. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1, where it was held that exemption notifications must be read strictly, and the person claiming the exemption has to clearly prove eligibility. It was also held that if there is ambiguity about the scope of an exemption, the benefit of such ambiguity will go to the Revenue and not to the assessee. 4.3 It is pertinent to mention that the Board has provided various extensions and general condonation, latest vide Circular No. 07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 to file/re-file the application for registration in case the Trusts have failed to do so or the application got rejected under specified grounds. However, the applicant has failed to avail the benefit of the same. Also, the applicant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for delay or to establish that the applicant trust had genui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. List of Additional Evidence: * Copy of 80G Registration Certificate granted on 30th October 2009 * Copy of Application made in Form 10A for 80G registration dated 02.01.2023." 6. The Ld. DR argued and stated that the assessee had filed application with a delay. So, in any case the delay should not be condoned. So, the Ld. CIT(E) has taken the correct decision where the application was rejected on the ground of limine. The Ld. DR respectfully relied on the order of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of CIT vs Shri Shivaji Educational Society reported in (2026) 184 taxmann.com 192 (SC). Relevant paragraph 6 is reproduced as below: "6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the present appeal can be disposed of while holding that the grant of exemption under Section 80G of the Act is not automatic to registration under Section 12AA of the Act as is laid down by this Court in the case of Sant Girdhar Anand Parmhans Sant Ashram's case (xupra). The relevant paragraph No.6 is extracted below: "6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having considered the record, what is evident is that neither the order of refusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18,610 From above, it can be clearly seen that the applicant has been consistently applying funds outside India and thus the said expenses are in violation of provisions of section 11(1)(c) of the Act. Also, the applicant has not obtained prior approval from the Board before undertaking such activities outside India, as mandated by the proviso below section 11(1)(c) of the Act. Applicant ought to have obtained such approval from the Board before undertaking such activities outside India. However, it has failed to do so." 9. The Ld. AR argued and stated that the application out side India refers to income applied for the benefit of person outside India. The assessee operates as a self-regulatory body for consumer protection in advertising within India. The core activities exclusively within Indian territory. The assessee paid subscription for obtaining affiliation with International Advertising Council. The payment to ICAS Membership is due to seeking the international affiliation outside India. The assessee subscribed to software service from foreign vendors. The software are deployed and consumed entirely in India for charitable activities such as education, healthcare....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Music Foundation (supra) clearly establishes that the activities carried out by the assessee are wholly undertaken within India and any collaboration with international institutions is solely to support and promote advancement of education in India and therefore, entering into such collaborations does not constitute a violation of section 11 of the Act. The payments made to overseas institutions are exclusively towards activities in connection with educational and charitable activities carried out in India and therefore, the same do not amount to application of funds outside India. We respectfully follow the orders mentioned above. Accordingly, it does not constitute violation of section 11 of the Act." 10. The Ld. DR argued and stated that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 11(1)(c) for payment outside India. So, in any case the registration cannot be allowed. He stands in favor of the order of revenue authority. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The first issue relates to the rejection of the application by the Ld. CIT(E) on account of delay in filing Form No. 10AB. During the course of hearing, the assess....