ST JOHN THE EVANGELIST CHURCH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

Brief facts are that the assessee, St. John the Evangelist Church, is a public religious and charitable trust established in the year 1955 and registered under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now known as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The assessee had filed an application in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of its regular registration. During the course of proceedings, the learned CIT(E) required the assessee to furnish a self- certified copy of the instrument creating or establishing the trust or, in its absence, a document evidencing its creation or establishment. The assessee was also called upon to furnish a copy of any scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court for its proper management and administration.

In response, the assessee explained that it had not been constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association. It furnished the application in Schedule II filed before the Charity Commissioner on 03.01.1955, the certificate dated 20.06.1955 registering it as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, its earlier registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act dated 29.10.1976, the registration granted under the new regime in Form No. 10AC dated 31.05.2021 and other documents concerning its constitution, objects and activities. The learned

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a church and public religious-cum- charitable institution which has been in existence for more than seven decades. It was established and is administered under the religious jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and has been registered as a public trust since 20.06.1955. Its objects and activities are religious as well as charitable, including educational and medical relief and assistance to the public. The assessee also attends to the spiritual and temporal needs of its congregation and, being situated in the precincts of the Mumbai Port, renders assistance to seafarers through its Port Chaplain.

It was further contended that Rule 17A(2) itself draws a distinction between an applicant created or established under an instrument and one created or established otherwise than under an instrument. In the latter case, clause (b) requires a document evidencing its creation or establishment and does not mandate a formal trust deed. Therefore, insistence upon an instrument of trust even in a case falling under clause (b) would obliterate the distinction consciously drawn by the Rule and render clause (b) nugatory. It was also submitted that there is no statutory requirement that every public religious or charitable trust must obtain a scheme from the

The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Coordinate Benches rendered in similar matters, including St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E) in ITA Nos. 5646 and 5849/Mum/2026, order dated 05.08.2026, and St. Ignatius Church v. CIT(E) in ITA No. 6052/Mum/2026, order dated 31.08.2026, and submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

The learned DR, while supporting the reasoning given in the impugned order, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for examining the objects and genuineness of the assessee’s activities and its compliance with the conditions governing exemption under sections 11 to 13 of the Act.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The application has been rejected principally because the assessee did not furnish a formal instrument of trust or any scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court. It is, however, undisputed that the assessee has been registered as a public religious and charitable trust under the Bombay/Maharashtra Public Trusts Act since 20.06.1955. It

Rule 17A(2) recognises two distinct modes in which a trust or institution may have been created or established. Clause (a) applies where the applicant has been created or established under an instrument, in which event a self- certified copy of such instrument is required to be furnished. Clause (b), on the other hand, applies where the applicant has been created or established otherwise than under an instrument and requires a self-certified copy of the document evidencing its creation or establishment. The two clauses cater to different factual situations and cannot be construed as imposing a cumulative requirement. If a formal instrument were indispensable in every case, the expression “otherwise than under an instrument” occurring in clause (b) would be denuded of all meaning.

In the present case, the assessee furnished not merely the certificate of its registration, but also the contemporaneous Schedule II application made before the Charity Commissioner containing particulars of its name, trustees

The requirement of registration with the Charity Commissioner under clause (c) of Rule 17A(2) may be distinct from the requirement prescribed under clause (b); nonetheless, the documents forming part of the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner do not thereby lose their evidentiary value. The Schedule II application and the findings or entries recorded pursuant to the statutory inquiry may legitimately evidence the creation and establishment of the institution, even though the ultimate certificate of registration is also separately required under clause (c). What is material being the substance and probative value of the documents furnished and not merely the nomenclature assigned to them.

We are also unable to sustain the insistence that the assessee must furnish a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court. A scheme may be framed where the governing statute so requires or where circumstances concerning the management or administration of a particular trust warrant such intervention. Neither section 12AB nor Rule 17A makes the existence of a scheme an invariable condition for registration. The absence of such a scheme, therefore, cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for rejecting the assessee’s application.

The decisions of the Coordinate Benches in St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E) and St. Ignatius Church v. CIT(E) have dealt with substantially similar circumstances and have held that the absence of a formal trust deed cannot be treated as fatal where an old religious or charitable institution, established otherwise than under an instrument, furnishes cogent statutory material evidencing its establishment and continued existence. We are in respectful agreement with the principle enunciated therein. The learned CIT(E), therefore, was not justified in rejecting the application at the threshold merely for want of a separate trust deed, Memorandum of Association or scheme of administration.

We further clarify that the provisions of sections 11 to 13 principally regulate the allowability and computation of exemption in the relevant assessment year. At the stage of registration, the learned CIT(E) may examine the objects, genuineness of activities and the statutory compliances falling within the remit of section 12AB; however, questions concerning the actual application of income or the availability

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