VAZIRANI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, MUMBA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6435/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 September 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a detailed reply with supporting documents, which was evidenced by an acknowledgement. Therefore, the rejection based on non-furnishing of documents was factually incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications, stating that the assessee had not furnished complete documents and evidence of its activities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without considering the detailed reply and documentary evidence filed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘F’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Shrushti Chawda
For Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya
Hearing: 09/09/2026Pronounced: 09/09/2026

आदेश / O R D E R ` PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against two orders dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, whereby the applications filed by the assessee seeking registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the

2 ITA No. 6434/Mum/2026 & 6435/Mum/2026 Vazirani Foundation Income-tax Act, 1961 have been rejected. Since both the appeals arise from the same set of facts and involve interconnected issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2.

Brief facts are that the assessee had filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. Upon examining the application, the learned CIT (Exemptions) observed that it was incomplete and that all the documents required to accompany it in terms of Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 had not been furnished. Accordingly, a notice dated 27.01.2026 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite documents, including details and supporting evidence of the activities undertaken by it. Though the assessee filed its response on 02.02.2026, the learned CIT (Exemptions) held that the requisite details and documentary evidence relating to its activities had not been provided and, therefore, the genuineness of such activities could not be established. On this premise, the application seeking registration under section 12AB was rejected and, consequently, the application seeking approval under section 80G also came to be rejected.

3.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the very foundation of the impugned orders is factually incorrect. He drew our attention to the detailed reply dated

3 ITA No. 6434/Mum/2026 & 6435/Mum/2026 Vazirani Foundation 02.02.2026 filed in response to the notice dated 27.01.2026, which, together with its annexures, appears at pages 12 to 118 of the paper book. It was pointed out that the said reply was accompanied by a comprehensive note on the activities undertaken by the assessee, the supporting documentary evidence, financial statements and the other particulars called for by the learned CIT (Exemptions). Our attention was also invited to the e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement generated by the Income-tax Department, which duly evidences the electronic filing of the reply and its annexures within the prescribed time. Thus, it was contended that the observation that the assessee had failed to furnish the details and proof of its activities is contrary to the material demonstrably available on record.

4.

We have heard the parties and perused the relevant material placed before us. The impugned order itself acknowledges that, in response to the notice dated 27.01.2026, the assessee had filed its submission on 02.02.2026. The e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement placed in the paper book further establishes that a detailed reply, together with the accompanying annexures, was uploaded in response to the said notice. The documents placed before us indicate that the reply contained, inter alia, the particulars concerning the constitution and objects of the assessee, a detailed note and supporting evidence relating to

4 ITA No. 6434/Mum/2026 & 6435/Mum/2026 Vazirani Foundation the activities undertaken by it, its financial statements and the other information called for by the learned CIT (Exemptions). These documents form part of the paper book from pages 12 to 118. In such circumstances, the categorical observation in the impugned order that the assessee had not furnished the details and proof of its activities does not accord with the material available on record. Once a detailed response accompanied by documentary evidence had been filed and its filing stood substantiated by the electronic acknowledgement, the application could not have been rejected without examining and dealing with such material. The statutory satisfaction regarding the objects and genuineness of the activities of an applicant has to be arrived at upon an objective consideration of the material furnished before the authority and cannot rest upon an omission which the record itself does not sustain.

5.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the impugned order rejecting the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT (Exemptions), who shall examine the reply dated 02.02.2026 along with all the documents and supporting evidence filed therewith and decide the application afresh in accordance with law. If, upon such examination, the objects and activities of the assessee are found to be genuine and all the other statutory parameters governing the grant of

5 ITA No. 6434/Mum/2026 & 6435/Mum/2026 Vazirani Foundation registration are satisfied, the learned CIT (Exemptions) shall grant registration in accordance with law. Since the application seeking approval under section 80G has also been rejected consequentially, the said order is likewise set aside and the learned CIT (Exemptions) is directed to decide that application afresh, having regard to the outcome of the proceedings under section 12AB and the material furnished by the assessee. Needless to say, due and effective opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee before deciding both the applications.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT (AMIT SHUKLA) MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 09/09/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

6 ITA No. 6434/Mum/2026 & 6435/Mum/2026 Vazirani Foundation 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →