BOMBAY UTKAL SAMITI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"], in Form No. 10AD, pertaining to

2 ITA No. 4871 and 4872/Mum/2026 Bombay Utkal Samiti Assessment Year 2026-27. ITA No. 4871/Mum/2026 arises from the rejection of the assessee's application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], whereas ITA No. 4872/Mum/2026 arises from the rejection of its application for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. Since both appeals arise from the same set of facts and the decision concerning section 80G is consequential to the decision concerning section 12AB, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The assessee filed Form No. 10AB on 30.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB. The CIT(E), vide notice dated 26.11.2025, called upon the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents and details required under Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(E) observed that the application was incomplete and that all the documents required to accompany the application had not been furnished. As the assessee had not complied with all the terms of the notice, the CIT(E) held that he was unable to arrive at the requisite satisfaction regarding the objects of the assessee, genuineness of its activities and compliance with other applicable law. He accordingly rejected the application under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) on the ground of non-compliance. 3. The assessee had also filed Form No. 10AB on 30.09.2025 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), seeking renewal of approval under section 80G. In the impugned order,

3 ITA No. 4871 and 4872/Mum/2026 Bombay Utkal Samiti the CIT(E) recorded that the assessee's application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had been rejected vide order dated 27.02.2026. The Form No. 10AD rejecting the application under section 12AB, as placed in the present record, bears date 28.02.2026. Holding that the condition prescribed in section 80G(5)(i) was not fulfilled consequent to rejection of the application under section 12AB, the CIT(E) rejected the application for renewal of approval under section 80G.

i. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in facts and in law, in rejecting the application preferred by the appellant under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). ii. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in facts and in law in rejecting the application preferred by the appellant without issuing any show-cause notice or calling for any specific further evidence, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. iii. The learned CIT(Exemptions) failed to appreciate that the alleged non- compliance to the solitary notice dated 26.11.2025 was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to a bona fide human error, as the notice went unnoticed by the concerned person/s. iv. The learned CIT(Exemptions) erred in ignoring that the appellant was a 65 year old entity which was registered for a number of decades and had already been granted registration under section 12AB for Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27 after due verification of its objects and activities, and there has been no adverse change in facts warranting rejection.

4 ITA No. 4871 and 4872/Mum/2026 Bombay Utkal Samiti v. The learned CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application purely on technical and procedural grounds of non-compliance to notice, without examining the genuineness of activities or objects of the trust. vi. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing.

The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 4872/Mum/2026 are:

i. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in facts and in law, in rejecting the application preferred by the appellant under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). ii. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in facts and in law in rejecting the application preferred by the appellant without issuing any show-cause notice or calling for any specific further evidence, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. iii. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application for renewal of registration of the trust under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) thereby consequentially rejecting the renewal of approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act. iv. The learned CIT(Exemptions) erred in disregarding the charitable nature of the trust, and in not appreciating that on the basis of evidence on record the trust deserved to be recognized for the purposes of section 80G of the Act. v. The learned CIT(Exemptions) failed to appreciate that the alleged non- compliance to notice dated 26.11.2025 was neither wilful nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide human error, as the notice went unnoticed by the concerned person. vi. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing.

5 ITA No. 4871 and 4872/Mum/2026 Bombay Utkal Samiti

6 ITA No. 4871 and 4872/Mum/2026 Bombay Utkal Samiti the assessee, genuineness of its activities and compliance with other applicable law. Thus, the application was rejected for non- compliance without determination of the assessee's eligibility on the basis of complete material. 8. The assessee has explained the circumstances resulting in the non-compliance and has undertaken to furnish the requisite material and cooperate in the proceedings. Having regard to the nature of the order passed by the CIT(E), the explanation offered by the assessee and the absence of any objection from the Revenue to restoration, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by granting one more effective opportunity to the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 28.02.2026 and restore the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB to the file of the CIT(E) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law. The CIT(E) shall afford a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall consider the documents and explanations furnished by it. The assessee shall, in turn, comply with the notices issued and furnish the requisite material without seeking unwarranted adjournment. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee's eligibility for registration. 9. The application under section 80G was rejected as a consequence of the rejection of the application under section 12AB. Since the order rejecting renewal of registration under section 12AB has been set aside and the matter has been

7 ITA No. 4871 and 4872/Mum/2026 Bombay Utkal Samiti restored for fresh adjudication, the consequential order dated 28.02.2026 cannot survive in its present form. We accordingly set aside the said order and restore the application for renewal of approval under section 80G to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) shall decide the application afresh, in accordance with law, after or along with the fresh decision on the assessee's application under section 12AB and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the assessee's eligibility for approval under section 80G.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 12.08.2026 ANKIT, PS

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2.

8 ITA No. 4871 and 4872/Mum/2026 Bombay Utkal Samiti 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai