Registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G are central to the tax position of a charitable or religious trust or institution. Section 12AB governs the trust’s own exemption under sections 11 and 12, whereas section 80G governs deduction available to donors. When the Department does not grant renewal or regular registration/approval, the next step depends entirely on the procedural status of the case.
Broadly, such cases fall into three categories:
(i) the application has been filed but is still pending;
(ii) the application has been rejected by a formal order; or
(iii) the due date was missed and the required application was not filed in time.
The remedy is not identical in all three situations. In this article, I have attempted to examine each scenario in detail and to discuss the appropriate practical and legal course available in each case. However, if your specific issue is not covered herein, or if you require any clarification after reading the article, you may feel free to contact me at the details mentioned at the end of this article.
First step in every case: verify the exact portal status
Before taking any legal or procedural step, the trust or institution should first download and verify the following:
- the last Form 10AC / 10AD / approval order;
- the current Form 10AB acknowledgement, if filed;
- the portal status—whether the case is pending, rejected, or not filed / time-barred;
- the exact section code selected in the application; and
- the exact ground recorded in the rejection order, if any.
This preliminary verification is essential because CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 granted a limited transitional relief in respect of certain late or wrongly coded Forms 10A/10AB and certain pending Form 10AB applications. However, that circular was a specific one-time relaxation, not a permanent rule that every delayed or pending case must automatically be treated as valid.
Where the application is pending and no order has been passed
A pending Form 10AB should not be treated casually. The present legal position does not support a broad assumption that pendency by itself results in automatic renewal or deemed continuation of section 12AB registration or section 80G approval. The current statutory processing framework, as rationalised by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, requires regular registration/approval applications under section 12AB and section 80G to be disposed of within six months from the end of the quarter in which the application was received.
Accordingly, the first practical exercise in a pending case is to compute the statutory disposal deadline:
- application received in April to June → order ordinarily due by 31 December;
- application received in July to September → order ordinarily due by 31 March;
- application received in October to December → order ordinarily due by 30 June;
- application received in January to March → order ordinarily due by 30 September.
CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 did state that certain pending Form 10AB applications covered by that circular “may be treated as a valid application,” but that protection was confined to the cases covered by the circular and cannot safely be read as a general doctrine of deemed approval for all future pending cases.
The safer legal position is reinforced by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Addor Foundation, where the Court held that non-disposal of the registration application within the prescribed period does not automatically result in deemed grant of registration, since the statute does not create such a legal fiction. The Court indicated that the appropriate remedy for departmental inaction is to seek relief under Article 226 for expeditious disposal.
Therefore, in a pending case, the best course is:
- preserve the filed Form 10AB, acknowledgement, and earlier approval order;
- compute the disposal deadline under the six-month-from-end-of-quarter rule;
- file an online grievance on the portal; and
- send a written representation to the jurisdictional CIT(E)/PCIT(E) seeking disposal by a speaking order.
The e-filing portal itself provides a grievance mechanism through the Grievances menu, including Submit Grievance and Grievance Status functionality.
If the statutory period for disposal has expired and the application still remains undecided, or where such pendency is materially prejudicing the trust’s exemption position or the availability of donor deduction under section 80G, the first practical step should ordinarily be to personally visit the Department along with all relevant documents and records, and make a formal enquiry with the jurisdictional officer regarding the present status of the application, the reasons for the continued pendency, and the likely course for its disposal.
A practical caution is necessary here. If the old 12AB registration is still in force, the trust may continue on the strength of that subsisting registration while pressing for disposal. But if the earlier 12AB period has already expired and only the renewal application is pending, the exemption position becomes litigation-sensitive because no general statutory provision was located that grants automatic continuation merely on account of pendency. The risk is even sharper for 80G, because the Department’s own FAQ states that donations made after cancellation or expiry of the 80G certificate are not eligible for deduction. Therefore, if the earlier 80G approval has expired, it is unsafe to assure donors that deduction is fully protected merely because a renewal application is pending.
Where the application has been rejected by a formal order
A rejected case must be handled differently from a pending case. Once the Commissioner has passed a speaking order rejecting renewal or approval, the matter should not be treated as a mere portal issue. The first step is to identify the precise ground of rejection.
In practice, rejection orders generally fall into three categories:
- delay / wrong section code / portal defect;
- non-statutory or legally unsustainable grounds; or
- substantive merits, such as alleged lack of genuineness of activities, defective objects, or non-compliance with other material laws.
This classification matters because some defects are curable by fresh filing or rectificatory steps, while others require an immediate appellate challenge.
(a) Rejection only because of delay or wrong section code
CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 gave a one-time window permitting fresh Form 10AB filings up to 30 June 2024 in specified cases where rejection had occurred only because the filing was late or because the wrong section code had been used. That window was transitional and is no longer an open-ended remedy today.
For current cases, the Department’s own FAQ states that condonation for Form 10AB is to be filed along with Form 10AB itself by selecting Filing Type = Condonation and then choosing the relevant condonation year. Therefore, where the defect is essentially one of delayed filing, the current practical route is a fresh Form 10AB in condonation mode, accompanied by a detailed explanation and supporting documents.
If the issue is a pure portal mismatch—such as wrong or interchanged acknowledgement numbers between section codes—the Department has specifically advised users to utilise the “Surrender Form 10AC / Withdraw 10A” functionality and refile in the correct codes. That guidance, however, is relevant only where the problem is genuinely a coding or portal migration issue and not a reasoned rejection on merits.
(b) Rejection on non-statutory or legally unsustainable grounds
This is often the strongest category for challenge. A major recent development is the Bombay High Court judgment in The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Ors., where the Court held that neither section 12AA nor section 12AB requires an explicit irrevocability clause in the trust deed as a condition precedent for registration. The Court further held that section 12AB(1)(b) is concerned with the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws material to the objects, and it quashed the rejection orders that had insisted upon such a non-statutory requirement. The Court also quashed consequential 80G denials that had been based solely on the 12AB rejection on that ground.
Accordingly, where rejection is founded on extra-statutory objections—such as absence of an express irrevocability clause, a portal declaration trap not required by the Act, lack of proper hearing, or a non-speaking order—the order should ordinarily be challenged.
(c) Rejection on substantive merits
Where the Commissioner records findings that the trust has failed on objects, genuineness of activities, or material-law compliance, the matter should be treated as a substantive merits dispute. Under section 12AB, those are the statutory areas of inquiry, and the Commissioner is expected to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before rejecting the application.
In such cases, the correct strategy is usually twofold:
- challenge the rejection order on facts, law, and procedure; and
- simultaneously cure the underlying defect for future continuity, such as amending the trust deed, regularising registrations, strengthening documentary evidence of activities, or completing missing compliance.
A fresh application after curing defects may help prospectively, but it does not automatically neutralise the effect of the earlier rejection for the intervening period.
Appellate remedy in rejected cases
Where there is a formal rejection order, limitation should be watched very carefully. By the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, section 253(3) was amended so that appeal to the Tribunal is to be filed within two months from the end of the month in which the order is communicated, with effect from 1 October 2024.
Thus, if an order is communicated on 18 March 2026, the ordinary last date for appeal would run to 31 May 2026. The practical lesson is straightforward: appeal should be prepared immediately on receipt of the rejection order, and one should not allow portal-follow-up or curative refiling efforts to consume the limitation period.
In current practice, rejected 12AB and 80G orders are being carried in appeal before the Tribunal, as reflected in recent ITAT orders dealing with both section 12AB and section 80G rejection matters.
A related risk-management point must also be kept in mind. If 80G stands rejected and the earlier approval has expired or been cancelled, donor deduction should not be represented as continuing. Likewise, if 12AB renewal is rejected after the earlier registration period has expired, the trust’s exemption position under sections 11 and 12 becomes unsafe and cannot be treated as preserved merely because a fresh application may later be filed.
Where the due date was missed and Form 10AB was not filed in time
A missed due date should be treated as urgent. The correct response is not to wait for rejection or for a departmental notice.
CBDT Circular No. 6/2023 had extended certain Form 10A and Form 10AB deadlines up to 30 September 2023, and also recognised the hardship caused by delay, including exposure to section 115TD consequences in the case of trusts that failed to regularise in time. CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 later granted further transitional relief up to 30 June 2024 in specified cases. Those circulars were important relief measures, but they were not permanent safe harbours for all future delayed filings.
(a) Missed due date under section 12AB
For section 12A/12AB, the law is now materially more favourable than before. As recorded in the 2024 Memorandum and the portal’s own statutory-form guidance, the law was amended to empower the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to condone delay in filing the relevant application where there is reasonable cause, and the portal now supports this condonation mechanism. The portal specifically states that the condonation request for Form 10AB is required to be filed along with Form 10AB, not through the separate general condonation service.
Accordingly, where the due date for section 12AB renewal / regular registration has been missed, the best immediate course is:
- file Form 10AB in condonation mode immediately; and
- upload a detailed condonation note with supporting documents.
The condonation note should clearly state:
- date of earlier registration and expiry;
- exact statutory clause under which the present application is being made;
- reason for the delay and why it was bona fide;
- chronology of events;
- evidence of continued charitable or religious activities; and
- copies of trust deed, amendment deeds, audited accounts, activity reports, bank statements, prior approval orders, and any evidence of portal difficulty.
This is important because condonation is to be considered on the basis of reasonable cause, not as a routine mechanical relief.
(b) Missed due date under section 80G
For section 80G, the position requires more care. The 2024 Memorandum states that the 80G timing rules were rationalised, and that where activities have not commenced, the application is to be filed at least one month before the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year from which approval is sought, while where activities have commenced, the application may be made at any time after commencement. The same 2024 amendments also shifted the processing timeline to six months from the end of the quarter in which the application is received.
However, the express condonation discussion in the official material is much clearer for section 12A/12AB than for section 80G. In practical terms, where the old 80G approval has expired and the filing has been missed, the safest present course is:
- file Form 10AB immediately using the available portal workflow;
- use the condonation-enabled filing path where the portal permits it; and
- simultaneously file a detailed representation to CIT(E)/PCIT(E) explaining the delay and requesting that the application be entertained.
This is the most risk-managed course on the current official material.
A special caution applies here: the Department’s 80G FAQ expressly states that donations made after cancellation or expiry of the 80G certificate are not eligible for deduction. Therefore, if the earlier 80G approval has already expired, it is unsafe to tell donors that deduction is protected merely because a delayed application is now being filed.
If both 12AB and 80G issues arise together
Where both section 12AB and section 80G are affected, the practical approach should usually be to stabilise 12AB first or in parallel, because 12AB goes to the trust’s own exemption structure under sections 11 and 12, and in many cases 80G difficulty is consequential to a 12AB problem. The Bombay High Court’s 2026 judgment is especially important in this regard, because it recognised that consequential 80G denials may fail where the underlying 12AB rejection itself is legally unsustainable.
At the same time, section 80G must not be ignored, because donor deduction operates independently and can be lost for the gap period after expiry. Therefore, where both are involved, the better course is usually parallel corrective action, with factually consistent filings and representations.
Additional point: 12AB validity has changed for smaller trusts
The 2025 Memorandum states that, to reduce compliance burden, the period of validity of registration under section 12AB was proposed to be increased from 5 years to 10 years in cases where the application is under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) to (v) and the trust’s total income, before giving effect to sections 11 and 12, does not exceed ₹5 crore in each of the two previous years preceding the year of application. The Memorandum states that this change takes effect from 1 April 2025.
However, no corresponding general 10-year extension for 80G was located in the official material reviewed. Therefore, the 12AB extension should not be assumed to apply automatically to 80G approvals.
Conclusion
The correct legal response when section 12AB or section 80G is “not renewed” depends entirely on the procedural posture of the case.
If the application is pending, do not assume deemed renewal. Compute the statutory disposal deadline, file a portal grievance, send a written representation to CIT(E), and, if the matter is overdue, consider a writ for time-bound disposal.
If the application is rejected, identify the exact rejection ground immediately. Curable cases such as delay or code mismatch may justify a corrective filing, but legally unsustainable or merit-based rejections ordinarily require a prompt appellate challenge. Appeal limitation under section 253(3) must be watched closely.
If the due date was missed, the trust should move without delay. For section 12AB, the clearest present route is Form 10AB in condonation mode with a detailed reasonable-cause note. For section 80G, immediate filing plus a detailed representation to CIT(E) remains the safer course, especially where expiry has already affected donor deduction.
The central practical message is this: delay cases should be regularised immediately, pending cases should be escalated, and rejected cases should be litigated without losing limitation. In substance, it is usually prudent to stabilise 12AB first, because many 80G difficulties become consequential once the 12AB defect is resolved.
The author can also be reached at varunmukeshgupta96@gmail.com
CAclubindia
