ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

The assessee is a public charitable educational institution administering St. Thomas High School, Goregaon, Mumbai. The school was established in the year 1947 and has since been engaged exclusively in imparting primary and secondary education, which undisputedly constitutes a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee is administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and is registered as a public trust under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now known as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is not in dispute that the assessee has enjoyed uninterrupted recognition from the educational authorities, has remained registered under section 12A of the Act for several decades, had also been granted registration under the new regime by issuance of Form No. 10AC with effect from 23.09.2021, and has consistently been enjoying approval under section 80G. Upon expiry of the earlier registration, the assessee filed the present application in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of registration

During the course of proceedings, the learned CIT(E) required the assessee to furnish, inter alia, a self-certified copy of the instrument of trust or Memorandum of Association as contemplated under Rule 17A of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. In response, the assessee explained that it had never been constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association and that, being a Catholic missionary educational institution, its internal administration was governed by Canon Law. It was further submitted that the assessee had furnished the statutory application submitted before the Charity Commissioner at the time of registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act together with the certificate of registration and other contemporaneous records evidencing the creation, establishment and continued existence of the trust. The learned CIT(E), however, held that these documents could not substitute the instrument creating the trust and, according to him, in the absence of such constitutive document, it was not possible to record the satisfaction contemplated under section 12AB regarding the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and the fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed under the Act. Proceeding on the aforesaid reasoning, he rejected the application for renewal of

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the outset, both the learned representatives fairly submitted that the controversy involved in the present appeals is identical, both on facts as well as in law, to the controversy decided by this very Bench in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), pronounced on the same date. It was submitted that the impugned orders have been passed on identical reasoning, the statutory provisions involved are the same, the written submissions substantially overlap and the legal issue requiring adjudication is common, namely, whether renewal of registration under section 12AB can be denied solely on the ground that the assessee, though admittedly registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and continuously recognised under the Income-tax Act for several decades, was not constituted under a formal written trust deed. We shall, therefore, examine the controversy in the light of the findings recorded by us in the aforesaid decision while independently considering the facts of the present case.

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasoning recorded by the learned CIT(E) and submitted that production of the instrument creating the trust is a mandatory requirement for enabling the Commissioner to examine the charitable objects of the institution, the identity of the beneficiaries and the legal framework governing its administration. According to the Revenue, the application submitted before the Charity

We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. We have also carefully examined the impugned orders and the written submissions filed by both the parties. At the outset, we find that the controversy involved in the present appeals is identical, both on facts and in law, to that decided by this very Bench in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), wherein, by an order pronounced on the same date, this Tribunal had occasion to examine in considerable detail the scope of section 12AB of the Act, Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the entire body of judicial precedents governing the issue. Having independently examined the facts of the present case, we find that the reasoning adopted by the learned CIT(E), the statutory provisions involved, the documentary evidence produced by

We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned orders and examined the material placed before us. Upon such consideration, we find that the controversy involved in the present appeals is, in all material particulars, identical to that which came up for our consideration in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), decided by us on the same date. In the said decision, after an elaborate examination of the scope of section 12AB of the Act, Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the judicial precedents governing the field, we held that where a charitable institution has admittedly been established otherwise than under a written instrument, the absence of a formal trust deed cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusing registration under section 12AB. We also held that Rule 17A itself draws a clear distinction between

Having independently examined the facts of the present case, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid view. The assessee before us is likewise a long- established public charitable educational institution registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, whose existence and charitable character have remained recognised by the statutory authorities for several decades. It has continuously enjoyed registration under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and there is no dispute either regarding the charitable nature of its objects or the genuineness of its educational activities. The rejection of the application by the learned CIT(E) rests exclusively upon the absence of a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association. The factual matrix, the statutory provisions involved and the legal submissions advanced before us being substantially identical to those considered in the aforesaid decision, we find no reason to take a view different from the one already adopted by this Bench.

We have already, in our consolidated order of even date passed in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.), undertaken an elaborate examination of the scope and ambit of section 12AB of the Act, Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the judicial precedents governing the controversy, including the decisions in Laxminarayan Maharaj v. CIT (supra), Ananda Social & Educational Trust v. CIT (supra), Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT (Exemptions) (supra), Pr. CIT (Exemptions) v. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid (supra), CIT v. Hazrat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust (supra) and the other authorities referred to therein. Since the controversy involved in the present appeals is identical both on facts and in law, and no distinguishing feature has been brought to our notice by the Revenue warranting a different view, the detailed discussion, reasoning and conclusions recorded in the aforesaid order are incorporated herein by reference and shall form an integral part of the present order. Applying the ratio laid down therein mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present case, we hold that the learned CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB merely on account of the absence of a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association, when the assessee had otherwise produced cogent

Even otherwise, we find that the learned CIT(E) has not recorded any adverse finding regarding the charitable objects of the assessee, the genuineness of its activities or the compliance with any other law material for achieving its charitable purposes. There is also no finding that the assessee has altered its objects, diverted its activities or ceased to carry on educational activities. The sole basis of rejection is the non-production of a formal trust deed. For the detailed reasons recorded by us in the aforesaid decision, such an approach, in our considered opinion, is contrary to the statutory scheme embodied in section 12AB read with Rule 17A and cannot be legally sustained.

We also find considerable merit in the contention of the assessee that the Department itself has consistently recognised the charitable status of the institution over the past several decades by granting registration under section 12A, thereafter under section 12AB and also approval under section 80G. In the absence of any material change either in the facts or in the applicable law, the learned CIT(E) was not justified in taking a diametrically opposite view merely on account of the absence of a written trust deed, particularly

Respectfully following our detailed decision rendered in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026 (St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E)), and for the reasons recorded therein, we hold that the impugned order rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB cannot be sustained. Consequently, the rejection of approval under section 80G, being purely consequential and not founded upon any independent adverse finding, is also liable to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore, required to be allowed.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.