ST CHATHERINS SOCIETY,ANDHERI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6095/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 September 2026AY 2025-265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to specify the exact documents or information that were not furnished, thus denying the assessee a proper opportunity to respond. Consequently, both applications were restored for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee society applied for renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected both applications citing non-compliance with a notice, without specifying the exact deficiencies.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without specifying the deficiencies and providing a clear opportunity to the assessee to comply.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya
For Respondent: Ms. Rampuriya Raghvan, CIT-DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 02.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6080/Mum/2026 Assessment Year : 2025-26 & ITA No.6095/Mum/2026 Assessment Year : 2025-26

St Catherine’s Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Mumbai 6th Floor, Cumballa Hill, MTNL St Catherine’s Home, Veera Desai Road, Andheri(West), TE Building, Peddar Road, Maharashtra-400058 Maharashtra-400026 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABTS3666B

Assessee by Shri Mandar Vaidya Department by Ms. Rampuriya Raghvan, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing 01.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.09.2026 ORDER

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.

1.

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 04.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [‘CIT(E)’], rejecting the assessee’s applications for renewal of registration under section 12AB and for renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), respectively. Since both appeals arise from the same set of

ITA Nos.6080 & 6095/M/2026 St. Catherine’s Society facts and the approval under section 80G is dependent upon the registration under section 12AB, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. We first take up ITA No. 6095/Mum/2026 relating to registration under section 12AB.

2.

In ITA No. 6095/Mum/2026, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT (Exemption), erred in passing order u/s. 12AA denying registration to the appellant u/s. 12AB of the Income-tax Act, without specifying the conditions that were not complied with, by the Appellant/assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) was not justified in denying registration without putting the assessee to notice, as to what details were required to be filed by the Assessee with the Ld. CIT(E). 3. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) misdirected himself in not specifying the details not filed by the assessee. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add/modify any grounds of appeal.”

3.

In ITA No. 6080/Mum/2026, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT (Exemption), erred in passing order u/s. 80G(5) denying registration to the appellant u/s. 12AB of the Income-tax Act, without specifying the conditions that were not complied with, by the Appellant/assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) was not justified in denying registration without putting the assessee to notice, as to what details were required to be filed by the Assessee with the Ld. CIT(E). 3. The Ld. CIT (Exemptions) misdirected himself in not specifying the details not filed by the assessee. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add/modify any grounds of appeal.”

ITA Nos.6080 & 6095/M/2026 St. Catherine’s Society 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is a society stated to be carrying on charitable activities. It filed Form No. 10AB on 29.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB. The learned CIT(E) issued a notice dated 24.11.2025 requiring the assessee to furnish documents and details prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. According to the learned CIT(E), the assessee did not comply with all the terms of the notice. Observing that, in the absence of the necessary compliance, satisfaction regarding the objects, genuineness of the activities and compliance with other applicable law could not be recorded, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application.

5.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the impugned order does not identify the specific documents or details which, according to the learned CIT(E), remained to be furnished. He submitted that the assessee was not confronted with any precise deficiency before rejection of the application and, therefore, the matter may be restored to the learned CIT(E) with an opportunity to place the complete record on file. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned orders. She, however, had no serious objection to restoration of the applications for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The application under section 12AB has been rejected on the ground that the assessee did not comply with all the terms of the notice dated 24.11.2025. However, the impugned order does not set out the particular documents or information which were called for but remained unfurnished. The conclusion regarding non-compliance is stated in general terms. In the absence of a specific identification of the deficiencies, it is not possible to ascertain whether the documents

ITA Nos.6080 & 6095/M/2026 St. Catherine’s Society allegedly not furnished were material for examining the objects and genuineness of the activities of the assessee.

7.

Registration proceedings require an effective opportunity to the applicant to meet the deficiencies noticed by the authority. In the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the issue requires fresh examination. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 04.03.2026 passed in relation to the application under section 12AB and restore the application to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) shall communicate to the assessee, with reasonable specificity, the documents or information required for deciding the application and shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices and furnish the requisite documents without seeking unnecessary adjournment. Thereafter, the learned CIT(E) shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration. The grounds raised in ITA No. 6095/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

We now take up ITA No. 6080/Mum/2026 concerning approval under section 80G(5). The learned CIT(E) has rejected the application solely for the reason that the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected and, consequently, the condition contained in section 80G(5)(i) was not satisfied. Thus, the rejection of the application under section 80G is consequential to the rejection of the application under section 12AB.

9.

Since the order rejecting the application under section 12AB has been set aside and that application has been restored for fresh consideration, the consequential order rejecting approval under section 80G(5) cannot survive in its present form. We accordingly set aside the

ITA Nos.6080 & 6095/M/2026 St. Catherine’s Society order dated 04.03.2026 passed under section 80G(5) and restore that application also to the file of the learned CIT(E). The application under section 80G shall be decided afresh, in accordance with law, after deciding the application under section 12AB and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised in ITA No. 6080/Mum/2026 are also allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 02/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 02/09/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order

(Assistant 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 →