SHREE ATMANAND JAIN STREET SHIKSHAN PATHASHALA,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA 6036/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: (2027-28) SHREE ATMANAND JAIN STREET CIT EXEMPTION SHIKSHAN PATHASHALA ROOM NO. 601, 6TH FLOOR, C/O SHANTILAL JAMNADAS, 673, CUMBALLA HILL, MYNL TE MADHAVRAI GULLY, M J MKT, BUILDING, PEDDAR ROAD, DR Vs. KALBADEVI, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400002, GOPALRAO DESHMUKH MARG, MAHARASHTRA CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA Appellant Respondent

PAN No. AAETS5098N

Shri Bhupendra Shah CA Appellant represented by: (Virtually Appeared) Respondent represented by: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT-DR) Date of hearing: 08-09-2026 Date of pronouncement: 15-09-2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24th March 2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, wherein the application of the assessee seeking registration under Section 12AB of Income-tax Act, 1961 ( In short the ‘Act’) for regularization of the provisional registration came to be rejected.

2. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee, a charitable trust, was granted provisional registration in Form No. 10AC on 26th December 2023, valid for the period commencing Assessment Year 2024-25 and ending Assessment Year 2026- 27. In terms of clause (iii) of sub-section (1)(ac) of Section 12A of the Act, an institution holding provisional registration is required to apply for regularization thereof at least six months prior to expiry of the period of provisional registration, or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. Instead, the assessee's application came to be filed under clause (ii) of Section 12A(1)(ac), a provision applicable exclusively to trusts already possessing regular registration and seeking renewal thereof upon expiry of the five-year term.

“3. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the reasoning given by the ld. CIT(Exemptions). On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(E), we find that the application seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act has been rejected on the ground that the application was filed under wrong Section of the Act. On identical facts, the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mhalasakant Deosthan Mandir vs. CIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 284 (Pune-Trib.), has held as under:- “5. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application under clause iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its application for registration. We find that under identical situations, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- "9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking registration under the correct provision i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) which can also be considered. 10. In consonance with the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, the typographical error deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order dated 15.03.2024 of Ld. CIT (E) is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of Ld. CITE) dated 15-03-2024 and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication by considering amended application of the appellant under Section 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Act, or he can call for amended application from the appellant. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose." 6. Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra), & considering the totality of facts of the case & in the interest of justice we deem it proper to set- aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to treat the application already filed by the assessee as under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act instead of under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce supporting documents/evidences in support of application for registration without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed.” 4. Similarly, the Co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Rotary Charity Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 797 (Mumbai-Trib), has held as under:- 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. Before we proceed to examine the facts in assessee's case, it is important to first look at the relevant provisions of first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G which read as under – Provided that the institution or fund referred to in clause (vi) shall make an application in the prescribed form and manner to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, for grant of approval,- (i) where the institution or fund is approved under clause (vi) [as it stood immediately before its amendment by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020], within three months from the Ist day of April, 2021; (ii) where the institution or fund is approved and the period of such approval is due to expire, at least six months prior to expiry of the said period; (iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier: [or] [iv) [*] where activities of the institution or fund have-- (A) not commenced, at least one month prior to the commencement of the previous year relevant to the assessment year from which the said approval is sought; B) commenced [*** Jat any time after the commencement of such activities:] 6. Assessee, in terms of the above provisions, first applied for a provisional approval under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G within and subsequently (refer clause 2 in Form 10A) and was given the provisional registration up to AY 2024-25 on 04.04.2022. In the application for final approval in Form 10AB, it is noticed that assessee has once again mentioned same section i.e. sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G whereas the correct section code under which the assessee ought to have selected is clause iii) of first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G. We also noticed that Id. CIT(E) has treated the application as one filed under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G and accordingly rejected the application for not fulfilling the stipulated conditions prescribed for filing application for approval in Form 10AB. 6.1. From the perusal of forms filed and the facts of the case, in our considered view, there is merit in claim of the Id. AR that assessee has selected the wrong section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before Id. CITE) due to incorrect course of action advised, which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts to avoid the impugned rejection. In view of these discussions and respectfully following the above decision of the Kolkata Bench in the case of North Eastern Social Research Centre (supra), we remit the issue back to the file of Id. CIT(E), with a direction to grant final approval to assessee under Clause (iti) to first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, if assessee is otherwise found eligible. We also direct Id. CIT(E) to decide the application of the assessee for final approval as quickly as possible before the expiry of the provisional approval granted in order to enable the assessee to have the benefit of section 80G without any break. It is ordered accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 15/09/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai