ST. PETERS CHURCH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई पीठें, म ुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: C BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 5644/MUM/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2026-27) ST. PETERS CHURCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HILL ROAD BANDRA WEST, EXEMPTIONS MUMBAI-400050, MAHARASHTRA 601, 6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA HILL MTNL Vs. TE BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD, DR GD MARG MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAATS0900R

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Ms Vasanti Patel, AR प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Rajdeep Singh CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 17-Sep-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 21-09-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29/03/2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“Ld. CIT(E)”], rejecting the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on following grounds of appeal:

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1.] The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Application for Registration under Section 12AB of the Act solely on the ground that the Appellant failed to furnish the instrument of Trust/MOA as it amounts to non- compliance and non-fulfillment of mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 12AB (1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2.] The learned CIT(E) erred in observing that the application in Schedule II and subsequent registration Certificate issued by the Charity Commissioner do not constitute documents “evidencing the creation of the trust” as prescribed under Rule 17A(2)(b) of Income tax Rules, 1962 by completely overlooking the fact that the appellant is a religious and charitable trust duly registered with the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 based on valid declaration of trust since the year 1955 and exists as a public charitable trust. 3.] The learned CIT(E) failed to consider and appreciate the Certificate of Registration granted by the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 which is a valid document that establishes the existence of the Appellant Trust and is covered by the provisions of Rule 17(A)(2)(b) - any document evidencing the creation or establishment of the trust. 4.] The learned CIT(E) erred in observing that the Canon Law does not have any direct application for management and administrations of charitable trusts. 5.] The learned CIT(E) erred in relying upon the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 as the same are clearly not applicable in the case of the Appellant Trust – as it is undisputedly a public charitable trust. 6.] The learned CIT(E) erred in summarily rejecting the renewal application without considering the historical context and past records and evidence like audit reports and Return of Income filed over the past several decades that confirm the trust's long-standing charitable existence. 7.] The CIT(E) failed to appreciate that there has been no change in the objects of the Appellant, the nature of its activities, or the applicable law, the learned CIT(E) is bound by the “Rule of Consistency” as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT. The CIT (E) cannot arbitrarily change its stand to deny a status it has historically recognized and accepted. 8.] The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the Department has granted/renewed registration under Section 12A/12AA/12AB of the Act for several decades in the past based on the same set of documents furnished on earlier occasions. 9.] The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that his power under section 12AB of the Act is limited to verifying the genuineness of the activities of the charitable nature of object which in the case of the Appellant has not been doubted and therefore the order passed by the CIT(E) on the alleged ground based on format of the document, rather than the nature of the activities is contrary to the provisions of the Act. 10.] The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the rejection Order passed by him certainly affects the day-to-day management and functioning of the Appellant Trust though he may not have intended so.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

That the assessee is a charitable institution registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The assessee filed an application on 25/09/2025 in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act seeking renewal of its regular registration.

3.1. On verification of the application, the Ld. CIT(E) called upon the assessee to furnish the documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In response, the assessee furnished certain details and supporting documents and explained that it had not been constituted under a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association and that it was governed by Canon Law. The assessee further submitted that it was registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and furnished the application made before the Charity Commissioner along with the certificate of registration issued by the said authority.

3.2. The Ld. CIT(E), however, was of the view that the documents furnished by the assessee merely evidenced registration of the 3 public trust and did not constitute the instrument creating or establishing the trust. The Ld. CIT(E) further observed that the assessee had not furnished any scheme for its management and administration settled by the Charity Commissioner or by a competent Court. Accordingly, it was held that the assessee had failed to comply with the requirements prescribed u/s. 12AB(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

3.3. The Ld. CIT(E) was also of the view that an instrument of trust constitutes the foundational document for determining the charitable objects of a trust, the intended beneficiaries, the manner of administration and utilisation of its properties and income. According to the Ld. CIT(E), in the absence of such an instrument, the requisite satisfaction contemplated u/s. 12AB could not be arrived at. Consequently, the application seeking renewal of registration was rejected.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.1. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue arising in the present appeal stands squarely covered by the consolidated order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E), ITA Nos.5679/Mum/2026 & 5684/Mum/2026, order dated 05/08/2026, wherein an identical rejection on account of non-production of a formal trust deed/Memorandum of Association was considered by the Tribunal.

4.2. The Ld. AR submitted that, similar to the assessee considered in the aforesaid decision, the present assessee is also an old public charitable institution registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and has been enjoying registration under the provisions of the Act for several decades. The assessee was never constituted under a separate formal written instrument and had furnished before the Ld. CIT(E) documents evidencing its creation, establishment and continued existence as a public charitable institution.

4.3. It was submitted that Rule 17A(2) itself contemplates two distinct situations. Clause (a) applies where the applicant is created or established under an instrument, whereas clause (b) specifically applies where the applicant is created or established otherwise than under an instrument. Thus, according to the Ld. AR, insistence upon production of a trust deed in a case where no such formal instrument ever existed defeats the express language of Rule 17A(2)(b).

4.4. The Ld. AR further submitted that there has been no change in the objects or activities of the assessee and no adverse finding has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) regarding the genuineness of its charitable activities. It was accordingly submitted that the ratio laid down in the case of St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E) (supra) applies squarely to the facts of the present case.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.

6.1. In the aforesaid decision, the Coordinate Bench examined the statutory framework of section 12AB of the Act read with Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and held that where a charitable institution has been created or established otherwise than under a written instrument, the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusing registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.

6.2. Rule 17A(2) makes a clear distinction between an applicant created or established under an instrument and an applicant created or established otherwise than under an instrument. In the latter situation, Rule 17A(2)(b) requires a self-certified copy of the document evidencing the creation or establishment of the applicant. The statutory rule thus itself recognises the existence of trusts or institutions which may not have been created by a formal written instrument.

6.3. In the present case also, the assessee had placed before the Ld. CIT(E) the documents pertaining to its registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and had specifically explained that no separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association existed. The impugned order itself records that the assessee had furnished the application made for registration as a public charitable trust as well as the certificate of registration granted by the Charity Commissioner.

6.4. We further note that in St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E) (supra), after considering identical documentary evidence and the provisions of Rule 17A(2)(b), the Coordinate Bench held that rejection of registration merely for absence of a formal trust deed could not be sustained where cogent documentary evidence evidencing the creation, establishment and continued existence of the charitable institution was otherwise available.

6.5. The Ld. DR has not brought to our notice any material distinguishing feature, either on facts or in law, so as to warrant a departure from the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision. The reasoning adopted by the Ld. CIT(E), the provisions of section 12AB read with Rule 17A involved herein and the principal ground on which the renewal has been rejected are substantially identical.

6.6. We also note that the rejection in the present case primarily proceeds on the alleged failure of the assessee to furnish an instrument of trust/Memorandum of Association. The Ld. CIT(E) ultimately concluded that the application was liable to be rejected for failure to submit the instrument of creation or establishment of the trust, or a document considered by him sufficient to evidence its creation.

6.7. In the case of St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E) (supra), the Coordinate Bench further observed that where there was no adverse finding regarding the charitable objects, genuineness of activities or fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed u/s. 12AB, refusal of renewal solely for want of a written trust deed was contrary to the scheme of section 12AB read with Rule 17A.

6.8. The facts before us being materially identical, we respectfully follow the aforesaid decision. The detailed discussion, reasoning and conclusions recorded by the Coordinate Bench in St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E), ITA Nos.5679/Mum/2026 & 5684/Mum/2026, order dated 05/08/2026, are applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present appeal.

7.1. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 29/03/2026 and direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21-09-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 21-09-2026 Shamik Sr. P.S.

Copy to:

ST. PETERS CHURCH, HILL ROAD BANDRA WEST, 1 MUMBAI-400050, MAHARASHTRA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, 601, 6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA HILL 2 MTNL TE BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD, DR GD MARG, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI