MRIDULA (RINKU) ROY MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The assessee has raised the following grounds:

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act was rejected on the ground that the assessee did not respond to the notice dated 05.01.2026 issued by the learned CIT(E). This is the only reason for rejection of the application of the assessee for renewal of registration.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee trust is 40 years old, has been in existence for 40 years and the accounts of the assessee trust have been regularly audited and the accounts have 2 been regularly furnished and no adverse findings have been made against the assessee trust. The registration for renewal was rejected only for the reason that the assessee could not respond to the notice dated 05.01.2026. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that an opportunity may be given to the assessee trust to furnish all the necessary details before the learned CIT(E) and, therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E).

The learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the founder of the trust, Bhaktadas Roy is a nonagenarian aged 90 years and is retired a Commissioner of Income Tax who looks after the funds of the trust. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee trust did not have regular staff and at the age of 90 years the trustee could not check emails on a regular basis. The communication from the learned CIT(E) requiring the assessee to furnish various details could have been missed and the assessee could not attend to the notice issued by the learned CIT(E). Therefore, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee.

Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the order of the learned CIT(E), it is observed that the registration under section 12AB was denied to the assessee trust for the reason that the assessee could not respond to the notice dated 05.01.2026 issued by the learned CIT(E). The registration was merely denied to the assessee for non-compliance which in our view is not justified. Thus, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E), who shall decide the application for renewal of registration of the assessee afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned CIT(E) and furnish the necessary details and documents required.

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