JAL MINOCHER MISTRY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION -,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Brief facts are that the assessee, Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation, is a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is stated to be engaged in various charitable activities, inter alia, providing assistance to elderly persons in hospitals and old-age homes, relief to poor and distressed persons, medical aid and supplies, and educational support. The assessee is also registered under section 12A/12AB of the Act and had earlier been granted approval under section 80G under the erstwhile provisions vide order dated 15.12.2009. Under the new statutory regime, it was granted provisional approval under section 80G vide registration number AAATJ8684KF20212 dated 24.09.2021. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 25.05.2024 seeking regular approval, which was initially rejected by the learned CIT(E) vide order dated 16.10.2024. The assessee carried the matter

In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the learned CIT(E) issued notice dated 21.08.2025 calling upon the assessee to furnish the relevant documents. The assessee submitted its reply dated 28.08.2025 along with the supporting documentary evidence. After examining the material so furnished, the learned CIT(E), vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Form No. 10AD, granted approval under section 80G bearing Unique Registration Number AAATJ8684K25MB01 for the Assessment Years 2022–23 to 2026–27 under clause (ii) of the second proviso to section 80G(5). Since the said approval was operative up to the period relevant to Assessment Year 2026–27, the assessee filed another application in Form No. 10AB on 27.09.2025 seeking renewal of the approval from Assessment Year 2027–28 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5).

The material placed before us shows that the assessee had expressly disclosed its subsisting regular approval in the application itself. In the particulars of registrations furnished with Form No. 10AB, the assessee mentioned its registration under section 80G bearing Unique Registration Number

However, the learned CIT(E), vide the impugned order dated 21.03.2026, rejected the application as not maintainable on the ground that the assessee was holding only provisional approval under section 80G and, consequently, ought to have filed its application under clause (iii), instead of clause (ii), of the first proviso to section 80G(5). The application was accordingly treated as having been filed under the wrong clause.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the very foundation of the impugned order is contrary to the material available on record. He drew our attention to the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned CIT(E) in Form No. 10AD and submitted that, by virtue of the said order, the assessee had already been granted regular approval under section 80G for the Assessment Years 2022–23 to 2026–27. Therefore, on the date of filing the present application, i.e., 27.09.2025, the assessee was no longer holding provisional approval and its application under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) was legally correct and maintainable. He further pointed out that the particulars of the approval, including its Unique Registration Number and effective date, were disclosed in Form No. 10AB itself; a self- certified copy of the approval order was uploaded with the application; and its existence was once again brought to the notice of the learned CIT(E) in the reply dated 15.01.2026. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the impugned order; however, the existence and contents of the regular approval dated 23.09.2025 could not be controverted.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material placed on record. The solitary reason for rejecting the assessee’s application is that it was allegedly

Clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) governs a case where an institution or fund is already approved and the period of such approval is due to expire, whereas clause (iii) applies where the institution or fund continues to hold provisional approval. The nature of the approval subsisting on the date of filing the application is, therefore, determinative of the clause under which the application is required to be made. Since the assessee was holding regular approval on 27.09.2025, its application under clause (ii) was under the correct statutory provision. The conclusion that the application ought to have been filed under clause (iii) thus

This is also not a case where the order granting regular approval was produced for the first time before the Tribunal or otherwise remained outside the record of the learned CIT(E). The registration number, date and effective date of the approval were specifically disclosed in Form No. 10AB; the self-certified approval order dated 23.09.2025 was uploaded against the designated item requiring a copy of the existing approval; and the same was again referred to in the assessee’s reply dated 15.01.2026. The evidence demonstrating the true status of the assessee was thus embedded in the application itself and available at several places in the record. Once these documents were before the learned CIT(E), the application could not have been rejected by treating the assessee as a holder of merely provisional approval.

At the same time, we find that the learned CIT(E), having rejected the application at the threshold as not maintainable, has not examined the assessee’s eligibility for renewal on the touchstone of the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5). The impugned order does not contain any adjudication regarding the charitable nature of the assessee’s objects, genuineness of its activities, compliance with the statutory conditions or the documentary evidence furnished in

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.03.2026 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(E) shall treat the assessee’s application dated 27.09.2025, filed under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), as valid and maintainable and shall examine the assessee’s eligibility for renewal of approval on merits, having regard to the material already available on record and such further information or documents as may be lawfully required. The assessee shall be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard before passing the fresh order. We clarify that, except for deciding the validity and maintainability of the application under clause (ii), we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for renewal, and all such issues are left open for adjudication in accordance with law.

Having regard to the fact that the assessee’s existing approval has already run its course and its application has remained undecided on merits owing to its rejection on an

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.