LIONS CLUB OF BOMBAY AIRPORT SERVICE FUND,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

Both the appeals pertain to the same assessee and arise out of a common issue relating to the rejection of the applications for renewal of registration under sections 12A and 80G of the Act. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience, ITA No. 2801/Mum/2026 is treated as the lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the connected appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee has applied in Form No. 10AB for registration u/s. 12A of the Act for renewal of registration of trust. The Ld. CIT(E) had issued notice and asked for the old 12A registration certificate in physical format held by the applicant prior to 01.04.2021. The assessee was asked to submit the self-certified copy of the earlier registration u/s. 12A of the Act related to the old regime that is prior to 01.04.2021. The assessee contended that the assessee had submitted a notarized affidavit duly sworn on dated 31.03.2022 by Mr. Sameer Pratap on behalf of the assessee trust before the Ld. CIT(E). The assessee had specifically furnished the particulars of the original registration, including Registration No. TR/73-74 dated 18.03.1974 but unable to submit the decade old Registration Certificate in physical format. Due to non-availability of the physical copy of the Registration Certificate, the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act.

The Ld. AR argued and contended that the assessee had furnished the details of Registration number which was duly granted on 18.03.1974 by the Income Tax Authority but the assessee had already misplaced the decade old registration certificate. The Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the assessee’s application for renewal of registration for non-submission of the physical copy of the Registration Certificate. The Ld. AR contended that the CIT(E) is wrongly exercised his jurisdiction for rejection of the registration. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai has considered this issue and adjudicated in favour of the assessee in case of Shree Ghughari Dasha Disawal Sahaj Trust v. CIT(E), ITA No. 4355/Mum/2026, date of pronouncement 24.06.2026. The relevant observations contended in para no. 3 to 7 is reproduced as below: “3. We have carefully considered the material placed before us and the reasons recorded by the learned CIT(E). A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the rejection has not been founded upon any adverse finding regarding the charitable objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities, violation of any statutory provision, or non-compliance with any law material for achieving its objects. The sole basis for rejection is the non-furnishing of the old registration certificate granted under section 12A prior to 01.04.2021. 4. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the learned CIT(E) is not sustainable on the facts available on record. The assessee has specifically stated that registration under section 12A had originally been granted vide Certificate No. TR/32193 dated 19.09.1996. Significantly, this fact has not been shown to be incorrect by the Department. On the contrary, the records indicate that the assessee had subsequently been granted registration under section 12AB vide Form No.10AC dated 24.09.2021 by the Department itself. Such registration under the new regime did not emanate from a vacuum but necessarily proceeded on the premise that the assessee was a trust enjoying registration under the earlier regime. Once the Department itself has recognised the assessee as a registered charitable institution and has granted registration under section 12AB, the existence of the earlier registration cannot be disregarded merely because the assessee is unable to produce a physical copy of a certificate issued nearly three decades ago. 5. It is further pertinent to note that the learned CIT(E) has not recorded any finding that the registration granted in 1996 was ever cancelled or withdrawn in accordance with law. It is equally undisputed that for several years the assessee has been assessed in the status of a charitable institution and exemption under section 11 has been allowed. These surrounding circumstances constitute relevant and significant evidence regarding the continued existence and recognition of the assessee’s registration. In such circumstances, the absence of the physical certificate could at best constitute a procedural deficiency. However, a procedural deficiency cannot, by itself, lead to a conclusion that the original registration never existed or that the subsequent registration granted by the Department stood rendered invalid. 6. We also find merit in the contention of the assessee that the learned CIT(E), before drawing an adverse conclusion, ought to have verified the relevant departmental records, historical assessment records and registration records available within the departmental system. When the assessee specifically asserted the grant of registration under Certificate No TR/32193 dated 19.09.1996 and further pointed out that a request for issuance of duplicate certificate had been made, it was incumbent upon the authority to verify the departmental records instead of rejecting the application solely on account of non-production of a document which was originally issued by the Department itself. The impugned order proceeds on the assumption that absence of the physical certificate necessarily implies absence of registration. Such an assumption does not emerge from any positive material brought on record and overlooks the surrounding facts evidencing continued recognition of the assessee’s charitable status by the Department. 7. Considering the entirety of facts, we are of the view that the rejection of the assessee’s application solely for want of the physical copy of the original registration certificate is not justified. Since the impugned order does not contain any examination of the assessee’s objects, genuineness of activities or other conditions relevant for grant of registration under section 12AB, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) shall verify the departmental records regarding the registration stated to have been granted vide Certificate No. TR/32193 dated 19.09.1996 and thereafter adjudicate the assessee’s application afresh in accordance with law after providing due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to mention, the assessee shall extend full cooperation and furnish all such details and documents as may be called for during the course of fresh proceedings.”

The Ld. DR argued and stands in favours of the revenue authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and considered the material available on record. The issue in the present appeals is confined to the rejection of the assessee's application in Form No. 10AB for renewal of registration under sections 12A and 80G of the Act solely on the ground that the assessee could not produce the original registration certificate issued under the pre-01.04.2021 regime. The record reveals that the assessee had specifically furnished the particulars of the original registration, including Registration No. TR/73-74 dated 18.03.1974, and also filed a duly notarized affidavit explaining that the original registration certificate had been misplaced. Significantly, the impugned order does not record any finding that the original registration was never granted, or that it had been cancelled, withdrawn, or was otherwise non-existent. The rejection is founded only on the absence of the physical copy of the certificate. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Shree Ghughari Dasha Disawal Sahaj Trust (supra), we are of the considered view that the non-production of a decades- old registration certificate is merely a procedural deficiency and cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for rejecting the assessee's application without verification of the departmental records. Since the registration certificate was originally issued by the Department itself, it was incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(E) to verify the historical registration records before drawing an adverse inference. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to verify the departmental records regarding the registration stated to have been granted vide Registration No. TR/73-74 dated 18.03.1974 and thereafter adjudicate the assessee's applications for renewal under sections 12AB and 80G afresh in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(E) shall afford the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard before passing a speaking order. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all documents and information as may be called for during the set-aside proceedings. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.2801 & 2802/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th day of Aug 2026.