MSP FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 25.02.2026, passed by the learned

2 ITA No. 4893 & 4894/Mum/2026 MSP Foundation

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai ["CIT(E)"], in Form No. 10AD for Assessment Year 2026-27. ITA No. 4894/Mum/2026 arises from the rejection of the assessee's application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], whereas ITA No. 4893/Mum/2026 arises from the rejection of its application for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. Since the two appeals arise from the same set of facts and the decision in the appeal 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 had filed Form No. 10AB on 17.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB. The CIT(E) observed that the application was incomplete and that the documents required under Rule 17A(2) had not been furnished despite notice dated 30.01.2026. Holding that, in the absence of compliance, he was unable to examine the objects, genuineness of activities and compliance with other applicable law for the purposes of section 12AB(1)(b), the CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground of non-compliance. 3. Similarly, the assessee had filed Form No. 10AB on 17.09.2025 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) seeking renewal of approval under section 80G. Since the

3 ITA No. 4893 & 4894/Mum/2026 MSP Foundation

assessee's application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had been rejected by the separate order dated 25.02.2026, the CIT(E) held that the condition prescribed in section 80G(5)(i) was not fulfilled and consequently rejected the application under section 80G.

4 ITA No. 4893 & 4894/Mum/2026 MSP Foundation

existing registration under Section 80G, dated 10th January 2022, be extended and remain valid until the final disposal of this appeal The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 4894/Mum/2026 are: 1. The Learned CIT(E) proceeded to pass the order of rejection without the Appellant having received a definitive response or a revised date following the adjournment request filed on the portal. It is humbly submitted that the Appellant was under a bona fide belief that the request for additional time was under consideration, and the lack of a fresh hearing date resulted in an inadvertent non-compliance. 2. The rejection based on procedural non-compliance is overly technical. The CIT(E) should have looked at the charitable nature of the objects rather than rejecting the application on a preliminary stage. 3. The Appellant submits that the non-filing of the response was due to the preoccupation of their Authorized Representative with other time- barred statutory duties. This constituted a "sufficient cause" for the delay, and the Appellant should not be deprived of its charitable status due to an administrative oversight beyond its direct control. 4. In the interest of equity and justice, the Appellant prays that the matter be remanded back to the file of the Learned CIT(E). The Appellant is now ready and willing to comply with all directions and produce all necessary documents to establish its eligibility for registration.3 5. The Appellant prays that the matter should be listed for early hearing as the existing registration under Section 12AB dated 10th January 2022 should be extended to the date of final disposal of this appeal. 5. The learned Authorised Representative (AR), relying upon the written submissions, submitted that the applications in Form No. 10AB had been filed on 17.09.2025 and were rejected for

5 ITA No. 4893 & 4894/Mum/2026 MSP Foundation

non-compliance with the notice dated 30.01.2026 without affording a further effective opportunity. It was submitted that the non-compliance was neither wilful nor deliberate and that the applications ought not to have been rejected without examination of the assessee's objects, activities and supporting material. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee has placed on record a paper book containing, inter alia, the trust deed, registration certificates, earlier registration and approval in Form No. 10AC, audited financial statements, returns of income, a note on its activities and copies of Form No. 10AB. It was submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to furnish all requisite details and comply with the directions of the CIT(E). The learned AR accordingly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and both applications be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording an effective opportunity of hearing. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the respective impugned orders. However, the learned DR did not raise any objection to restoration of both matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The order concerning registration under section 12AB shows that the application was rejected because the CIT(E) considered the application incomplete and

6 ITA No. 4893 & 4894/Mum/2026 MSP Foundation

found that the assessee had not furnished the documents and details called for by notice dated 30.01.2026. Consequently, the CIT(E) could not examine the statutory parameters relating to the objects of the assessee, genuineness of its activities and compliance with other applicable law. Thus, the application was rejected without a determination of the assessee's eligibility on the basis of complete material. 8. The assessee has explained the circumstances resulting in 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 material now stated to be available 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 25.02.2026 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.

7 ITA No. 4893 & 4894/Mum/2026 MSP Foundation

8 ITA No. 4893 & 4894/Mum/2026 MSP Foundation

Order pronounced in the open court on.11.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 11.08.2026 ANKIT, PS

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 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