MARKET HALAI MEMON JAMAT,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS)MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable and religious trust establish since 1927. The assessee trust was registered u/sec. 12A on 20.03.1973 and it is operational since 03.11.1952. For renewal of registration under the new Act, the assessee filed the application in form No.10B u/sec. 12AA of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) had issued notice dated 14.11.2025 and asked to furnish the complete set of documents under Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rule, 1963. However, the assessee has failed to response the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the application for registration. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

The Ld. AR contended that the assesse had received provisional registration but the assessee filed the application for regularising registration u/sec. 12A of the Act. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee had hailed to comply the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E) which was not intentional. The Ld. AR prayed to restore the application for de novo. The Ld. AR contended that the identical issue was duly considered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in assessee’s own case bearing ITA No.1100/Mum/2025, date of pronouncement 22.04.2025. The relevant observations of the Bench contended in para no.4 and 5 are duly reproduced as below: “4. From the perusal of the impugned order it is seen that Id. CIT(A) has relied upon the Circular dated 25/04/2024 whereas from the perusal of the Circular it is seen that liberty has been given for filing of fresh application where application has been filed after due date of filing in the wrong section, however, the same was applicable on or before the issuance of Circular dated 25/04/2024. The relevant para reads as under:- "4.1. Further, in case where any trust, institution or fund has already made an application in Form No. 10AB, and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has passed an order rejecting such application, on or before the issuance of this Circular, solely on account of the fact that the application was furnished after the due date or that the application has been furnished under the wrong section code, it may furnish a fresh application in Form No. 10AB within the extended lime provided in paragraph 3(ii) Le 30.06.2024." 5. Here in this case the original application was filed by the assessee on 21/02/2024 which is prior to the date of Circular. Thus, the circular has wrongly been relied by the Id. CIT (E). Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of the Id. CIT (E) who shall examine the application afresh and all the details which has been filed before us and ld. CIT (E) will decide the issue afresh after considering all the documents and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices, accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

The Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that despite sufficient opportunity having been afforded, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite documents and comply with the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the Ld. DR supported the rejection of the application.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the assessee is an old charitable and religious trust and its application for registration was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) primarily on account of non-compliance with the notice requiring submission of the requisite documents. The Ld. AR has explained that such non-compliance was not intentional and has prayed for one more opportunity to place the necessary documents before the Ld. CIT(E).

We further note that the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the assessee's own case in ITA No. 1100/Mum/2025, pronounced on 22.04.2025, had restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to examine the application afresh after considering all the relevant documents and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Coordinate Bench had also specifically directed the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E).

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, we deem it appropriate to restore the present application to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the application after taking into account the documents and explanations furnished by the assessee and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to remain diligent and to comply with the notices and requirements of the Ld. CIT(E) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application, and all issues are left open for consideration by the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.5370/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose.