SETH SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY AND BAI ALAMAI SHAPOORJI MISTRY CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(E) dated 26.03.2026 in rejecting the application for registration of trust under section 12AB. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.1. The Hon'ble CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Appellant's application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Act, without examining the documents and submissions filed by the appellant in response to notice dated 25 January 2026. 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(E) erred in not appreciating that the appellant has furnished the required information and documents in response to the notice dated 25 January 2026, and therefore the rejection of the application on the ground of non-submission of documents is unjustified. 1.3. The Hon'ble CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant's application for renewal of registration solely on the alleged failure to establish the genuineness of activities undertaken by the trust, without examining the documents duly furnished vide reply dated 12 February 2026, which included the copy of the Trust Deed, the registration certificate, copy

ITA No.5950/Mum/2026 (AY: 2027-28) Seth Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry And Bai Alamai Shapoorji Mistry Charitable Trust

of registration on Darpan portal, copy of financial statements for the preceding four years, copy of ITR acknowledgement for the preceding four years, and registration details of earlier years in Form 10AC.

1.4. The Hon'ble CIT(E) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant was already holding valid registration certificate in Form 10AC for the preceding years, and the application made in Form 10AB was filed for renewal of registration and not for fresh registration, particularly when all requisite documents and details had already been furnished and examined by the Hon'ble CIT(E) during the earlier years.

1.5. The Hon'ble CIT(E) erred in facts and in law in rejecting the appellant's application on the ground that the appellant failed to provide details and proof of activities undertaken pursuant to the notice dated 25 January 2026, despite the fact that the appellant had duly furnished details of the nature of activities carried on by the trust.

1.6. The Hon'ble CIT(E) erred in appreciating that the said notice did not call/ request for submission of any documentary evidence in support of activities carried on by the Trust. Therefore, rejection on this ground is unjustified, erroneous, and unsustainable in law.

1.7. The Hon'ble CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Act without raising any further query or seeking any additional

1.8. The Hon'ble CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the appellant had responded satisfactorily to all the queries raised in the notice dated 25 January 2026, and at no point thereafter were any deficiencies pointed out or further documents or explanations were requested by the Hon'ble CIT(E).

1.9. The Hon'ble CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant's application forregistration without seeking additional details and affording an opportunity toappellant to furnish further documents, thereby denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and rendering the impugned order invalid being violative of the principles of natural justice.

1.10. The Hon'ble CIT(E) erred in not considering the details/documents filed by the appellant vide letter dated 12 February 2026. The Hon'ble CIT(E) erred in not providing cogent reasons as to why the details submitted are inadequate.

ITA No.5950/Mum/2026 (AY: 2027-28) Seth Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry And Bai Alamai Shapoorji Mistry Charitable Trust

at the time of filing application for renewal of assessee-trust the assessee filed required details. The learned CIT(E), vide his show cause notice dated 25.01.2026, asked the assessee to furnish a brief note on the nature and main activities of the assessee with regard to charitable purposes. The learned CIT(E) also required details of expenditure incurred on the objects of the trust, as disclosed in the financial statements, and to furnish details of the amount donated for relief to the poor, education, and medical relief. The assessee, in response to the aforesaid notice, filed detailed written submissions on 02-02- 2026. The learned CIT(E) has not considered such details and evidence filed in support of the activities carried out by the assessee in furtherance of its objects. The assessee furnished voluminous evidence to substantiate its activities in furtherance of the objects of the trust. A copy of the acknowledgement from the ITBA portal is also placed on record. The learned AR of the assessee submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(E), with a direction to consider such evidence and pass the order afresh. 3. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue, after going through the various evidences furnished by the assessee with regard to its activities carried out in furtherance of its objects, would submit that the learned CIT(E) has not considered such evidence. Therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(E) to reconsider the matter and pass the order afresh. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that at the time of filing the application for registration in Form 10AB for seeking renewal of registration under Section 12AB, the assessee furnished the requisite details. The assessee also furnished various other details in response to the aforesaid notice dated 25-

ITA No.5950/Mum/2026 (AY: 2027-28) Seth Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry And Bai Alamai Shapoorji Mistry Charitable Trust

01-2026. We find that the submissions made by the assessee on 02-02-2026 have not been considered by the learned CIT(E). Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(E) to reconsider all the evidences furnished by the assessee in order to substantiate its activities carried out in furtherance of its objects, and to pass the order afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that, before passing the order, the learned CIT(E) shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite details, if so required again by the learned CIT(E), for his satisfaction regarding examination of the objects and activities of the assessee. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in open court at the time of hearing on 17/09/2026. Sd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, Dated:17/09/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and By Order (5) Guard file.

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai