MUSIRI SUBBRAMA SASTRI CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2922/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 September 20269 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the objects of the trust were purely charitable and not religious. Therefore, the classification as 'religious cum charitable' was incorrect, and the denial of 80G approval based on this classification was also untenable.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(Exemptions) granted registration but classified the trust as 'religious cum charitable', which the assessee contested.

What were the issues?

Whether the trust's activities and objects qualify for classification as purely charitable, and if the denial of 80G approval was justified based on the CIT's classification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES,

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI

Pronounced: 11.09.2026

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

These are two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Chennai denying grant of registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) and approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 both dated 26.03.2026. TRUST [A]

2.

Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both these appeals of the Assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

3.

For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No.2921/CHNY/2026 are stated herein.

ITA No.2921/CHNY/2026 :

4.

The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. The order of the CIT(Exemptions), Chennai dated 26.03.2026 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM44/2025-26/1087920453(1) is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case in so far as the status of registration granted to the appellant trust as "Religious cum Charitable" trust is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case.

2.

The CIT(Exemptions), Chennai erred in granting renewed registration in terms of Section 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Act in reckoning the activities pursued by the appellant trust as "Religious cum Charitable" instead of "Charitable" without assigning proper reasons and justification TRUST [A]

3.

The CIT(Exemptions), Chennai failed to appreciate that the activities pursued by the appellant would fall within the ambit of Charitable activities and further ought to have appreciated that the narrow approach adopted for reckoning such activities as religious in complete contradiction to the judicial precedents was wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law.

4.

The CIT(Exemptions), Chennai failed to appreciate that providing educational support and assistance to veda parayanam, providing Anna Dhanam / poor feeding, providing medical assistance and aid to underprivileged persons should not be reckoned as purely religious inasmuch as the activities pursued to impart education would fall within the ambit of Charitable activity in terms of Section 2(15) of the Act, thereby vitiating his attempt to treat the same as "Religious cum Charitable".

5.

The CIT (Exemptions), Chennai failed to appreciate that aspect of "education" / "relief to poor" should be seen in a holistic / wider manner and ought to have appreciated that the narrow interpretation of the scope of such limb under Section 2(15) of the Act would vitiate the impugned order in its entirety.

6.

The CIT(Exemptions), Chennai failed to appreciate that supporting vedsas was errensouly considereds as religiously and ought to have appreciated that promoting the vedas should be reckoned to be educational object, proving the mis-direciton on his part by granting registration as religious cum chartiable trust in its entirety. TRUST [A]

7.

The CIT(Exemptions), Chennai failed to appreciate that the theory of "Substance Over Form" was completely overlooked and brushed aside, thereby vitiating his attempt to treat the same as "Religious cum Charitable".

8.

The CIT(Exemptions), Chennai failed to appreciate that there was no effective/proper opportunity given before passing the impugned order including non granting of personal hearing and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is nullity in law.

9.

The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.”

5.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust incorporated under the provisions of Trust Act. It was stated to have been formed with charitable objects. The appellant trust filed an application in Form No.10AB seeking grant of Registration u/s.12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.09.2025. It is formed with following objects : “Providing educational support and assistance. Conducting and supporting Anna Dhanam (food distribution to the needy. Providing medical assistance and aid to underprivileged persons. Other general charitable activities for public welfare. TRUST [A]

No part of the Trust income has been applied for the benefit of any particular religious community or for exclusive religious purposes. Financial Evidence Supporting Charitable Activities.”

6.

The appellant trust applied for grant of registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(1) of the Act in Form No.10AB on 29.09.2025. 7. The learned CIT(Exemptions), Chennai after duly considering the objects of the Trust as well as the information furnished in response to notice issued by the Learned CIT(Exemptions) had granted registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2026 vide DIN & Notice No.ITBA/EXM/F/EXM44/2025-26/1087920453(1). However, the Learned CIT(Exemption) classified the appellant-trust as ‘religious cum charitable trust’.

8.

Being aggrieved by this classification, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The Learned Counsel submits that taking us through the objects of the trust that the objects are purely educational support, assistance to veda parayanam, providing Anna Dhanam / poor feeding, providing TRUST [A]

medical assistance and aid should not be considered as religious activity as educational support would fall within the ambit of charitable activity in terms of section 2(15) of the Act. In support of this proposition, the learned Counsel relied on the following decisions :  Hon’ble Bombay high in the case of Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust(Shirdi) Vs. Union of India [2024] 169 taxmann.com 671 (Bom).

9.

On the other hand, learned CIT-DR opposed the above submissions.

10.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Learned CIT(Exemption) was justified in classifying the appellant-trust as a charitable cum religious trust. On mere perusal of the impugned order before us, it would reveal that the learned CIT(Exemption) had classified the appellant-trust as a charitable cum religious trust. Even though the learned TRUST [A]

CIT(Exemption) had not given any reasoning for such classification, based on the material available on record.

11.

On careful perusal of the objects of the trust, we find that none of the objects are religious in nature, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant-trust cannot be classified as a “religious cum charitable trust”, accordingly, we direct the Learned CIT(Exemption) to remove the word “religious” in the classification of the trust.

12.

In the result, appeal filed by the in ITA No.2921/CHNY/2026 assessee stands allowed.

ITA No.2922/CHNY/2026 – 80G(5) :

13.

On bare perusal of the impugned order, it would be clear that the appellant trust was denied the approval u/s.80G of the Act for the reason that the appellant-trust was classified as “religious cum charitable trust”, while seeking registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act. In the appeal filed by the appellant- trust against the order u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act in ITA TRUST [A]

No.2921/CHNY/2026, we had directed the Learned CIT(Exemption) to delete the word “religious” from the classification of the trust for the reasons stated therein. Since the reasoning adopted by the Learned CIT(Exemption) for denial of approval u/s.80G of the Act was held to be untenable in law by us in the appeal filed against order u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act, we direct the Learned CIT(Exemption) to grant the approval u/s.80G of the Act to appellant-trust.

14.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2922/CHNY/2026 stands allowed.

15.

To sum up, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th September, 2026. (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; िदनांक / Dated : 11th Sep, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS TRUST [A]

आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “डी” ब"च, चे"नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File.

5.

GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.09.17 18:02:55 +05'30'

9

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →