CHRIST CHURCH BYCULLA,BYCULLA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [‘CIT(E)’] under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), rejecting the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB for renewal of registration under section 12A of the Act.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Briefly stated, the assessee is a charitable institution stated to have been enjoying registration under section 12A since June 1976. The assessee filed an application on 26.09.2025 in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of its regular registration. The learned CIT(E) issued notices calling upon the assessee to furnish the

The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the impugned order proceeds on an incorrect factual premise. It was submitted that the relevant self-certified document evidencing the creation and establishment of the assessee had been uploaded with Form No. 10AB and was again furnished with the assessee’s reply dated 10.12.2025. He further submitted that the assessee had been registered under section 12A since June 1976 and its registration had also been renewed in September 2021 on the basis of the documents already available with the Department. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for verification of the complete record and fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned order. She submitted that furnishing the document contemplated by rule 17A(2) is necessary for examining the objects and legal constitution of the applicant. She, however, had no serious objection if the matter was restored for verification of the assessee’s claim and fresh consideration in accordance with law.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole basis on which the application has been rejected is the alleged failure of the assessee to furnish the instrument of creation or establishment, or a document evidencing its creation or establishment, as contemplated by rule 17A(2). The assessee’s specific case before us is that the relevant document had been filed along with Form No. 10AB and was again furnished in response to the statutory notice. It is also the assessee’s case that it has enjoyed registration since June 1976 and that the relevant constitutive record had been considered by the Department on earlier occasions. These assertions and the documents stated to have been filed require factual verification at the end of the learned CIT(E).

In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the application to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee shall furnish, within the time allowed by the learned CIT(E), a self-certified copy of the instrument under which it was created or established or, where it was created or established otherwise than under an instrument, the document evidencing its creation or establishment, together with such other documents as may be called for. The learned CIT(E) shall verify the documents already filed with Form No. 10AB and the subsequent replies, as well as the record relating to the earlier grant and renewal of registration, and thereafter decide the application afresh in accordance with law by a speaking order. A reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the eligibility of the assessee for registration.

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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