SAVARKAR DARSHAN PRATISHTHAN,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5898/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 September 20263 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on non-compliance with a notice, which the appellant claimed was an inadvertent error. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the appellant to pursue the application.

What were the facts?

The appellant Trust's application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB was rejected by the CIT (Exemptions) due to non-compliance with a notice. The Trust claimed the non-compliance was due to an inadvertent mistake and requested an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the renewal application solely on grounds of non-compliance with a notice without granting an opportunity to rectify the same.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’ble

For Appellant: Ms Minal Kale, CA (Virtually)
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraja Hiremath, CIT-DR &, Shri Rajgopal Parthasarthi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 01.09.2026

Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, President: By this appeal the appellant Trust is challenging the order dated 01.03.2026 passed by CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai, thereby rejecting the application seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short).

2.

The application has been rejected on a short ground of non-compliance with the terms of the notice issued to the applicant. The learned CIT(Exemptions) has found that in the absence of the compliance by the

ITA No.5898/Mum/2026 Savarkar Darshan Pratishthan appellant it was not possible to arrive at a satisfaction as to the objects of the appellant, the genuineness of activities, and the compliance of any other law relevant for the purposes of achieving its object. While rejecting the application the learned CIT(Exemptions) has stipulated that the appellant is at liberty to pursue the remedies available in law.

3.

We have heard parties. Perused record.

4.

It is submitted by the learned AR that the non-compliance with the requisition to submit certain documents was on account of an inadvertent and bona fide mistake. It is submitted that the CIT(E) could have granted adequate opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. It is submitted that the appellant shall comply with the requisitions and produce necessary documents if the matter is remitted back.

5.

The learned DR has submitted that appropriate order be passed.

6.

We have considered the submissions made. It is apparent that the application has been rejected on the ground of non-compliance with the notice issued seeking production of certain documents/information, which according to the appellant was on account of inadvertent error. We find that one opportunity can be granted to the appellant in the interest of justice to pursue the application.

ITA No.5898/Mum/2026 Savarkar Darshan Pratishthan 7 . In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application (Form 10AB) filed by the appellant is restored to the file of learned CIT(Exemptions) for disposal according to law. Needless to mention that the appellant shall co-operate in disposal of the application by production of documents/information as may be required. The learned CIT(Exemptions) shall decide the application after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- [Prabhash Shankar] [Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT Mumbai, Dated : 01 September, 2026 SA

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT, Mumbai. 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ‘G’ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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 →