ST. STANISLAUS INSTITUTION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

The assessee is a public charitable educational institution administering St. Stanislaus Institution, Bandra (West), Mumbai. The institution was originally established as an Orphanage in the year 1853 and, over the years, expanded into a full-fledged educational institution imparting primary and secondary education, which undisputedly constitutes a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. The institution is established and administered by the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) and stands 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 continuous recognition from the educational authorities, has remained registered under section 12A of the Act for several decades, was granted registration under the new regime by issuance of Form No. 10AC and has also been enjoying approval under section 80G. Upon expiry of the earlier registration period, the assessee filed the present applications in Form No. 10AB

During the course of the 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 administered by the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), its internal governance was regulated by Canon Law and the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus. The assessee further furnished the statutory application submitted before the Charity Commissioner on 03.01.1955, the certificate of registration dated 19.10.1957 issued under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and other contemporaneous documents evidencing the creation, establishment and continued existence of the trust. The learned CIT(E), however, held that such documents merely evidenced the registration of the trust and could not substitute the instrument creating or establishing the trust. Proceeding on the aforesaid reasoning, he rejected the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB and, as a necessary consequence thereof, also rejected the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the outset, both the learned representatives fairly submitted that the controversy arising 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.), as also in ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026, St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E.), ITA Nos. 5630/Mum/2026 and 5822/Mum/2026, School of St. John the Evangelist v. CIT(E.), ITA Nos. 5556/Mum/2026 and 5634/Mum/2026, Fatima High School v. CIT(E.) and ITA Nos. 5641/Mum/2026 and 5653/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus High School v. CIT(E.), all 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 principal legal issue requiring adjudication is 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 decisions while independently considering the facts of the present case.

The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions advanced before the learned CIT(E) and submitted that the rejection of the application proceeds on an erroneous interpretation of section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It was submitted that the assessee has been in existence since the year 1853 and has throughout been carrying on charitable activities, initially as an orphanage and thereafter as an educational institution. According to the learned counsel, the assessee was never constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association and, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of Rule 17A(2)(b), which expressly recognises institutions created or established otherwise than under an instrument. It was contended that the application submitted before the Charity Commissioner, the registration certificate issued under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the continued recognition granted by the educational authorities, the registration under section 12A, the subsequent registration under section 12AB vide Form No. 10AC and the approval under section 80G, together with the uninterrupted acceptance of the assessee’s charitable status by the Department over several decades, constitute sufficient documentary evidence evidencing the creation and establishment of the trust within the meaning of Rule 17A(2)(b). It was further submitted that there has been no

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasoning recorded in the impugned orders and submitted that production of the instrument creating the trust is an essential requirement for enabling the Commissioner to examine the charitable objects of the

We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned orders and examined the material placed before us. At the outset, we find that the controversy arising 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.), as also in ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026, St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E.), ITA Nos. 5630/Mum/2026 and 5822/Mum/2026, School of St. John the Evangelist v. CIT(E.), ITA Nos. 5556/Mum/2026 and 5634/Mum/2026, Fatima High School v. CIT(E.) and ITA Nos. 5641/Mum/2026 and 5653/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus High School v. CIT(E.), all pronounced on the same date. Having

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 respects, identical to that which came up for consideration before this very Bench in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.), as also in ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026, St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E.), ITA Nos. 5630/Mum/2026 and 5822/Mum/2026, School of St. John the Evangelist v. CIT(E.), ITA Nos. 5556/Mum/2026 and 5634/Mum/2026, Fatima High School v. CIT(E.) and ITA Nos. 5641/Mum/2026 and 5653/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus High School v. CIT(E.), all pronounced on the same date. In the aforesaid decisions,

Having independently examined the facts of the present case, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid view. The assessee before us is a long-established charitable institution which traces its origin to the year 1853, initially functioning as an orphanage and thereafter expanding its activities to the field of education. It is duly registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and has continuously enjoyed registration under section 12A and thereafter under section 12AB of the Act, besides approval under section 80G. There is no dispute before us with regard to the charitable nature of its objects, the genuineness of its activities or its compliance with any law material for carrying out its charitable purposes. The rejection of the applications 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

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

We further 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 fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed under section 12AB of the Act. There is equally no finding that the assessee has altered its objects, discontinued its charitable or educational activities or violated any statutory requirement material for achieving its charitable purposes. The rejection is founded solely upon the absence of a written trust deed. Such an approach, for the detailed reasons recorded in our aforesaid companion decisions, is contrary to the scheme of section 12AB read with Rule 17A and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

We also find that the assessee has enjoyed uninterrupted recognition under the Income-tax Act for several decades and has continued to pursue the same charitable objects without any material change in its constitution, objects or activities. In the absence of any distinguishing factual or legal circumstance, the principle of judicial consistency equally

Accordingly, respectfully following our detailed decisions rendered in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026 (St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.)), ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026 (St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E.)), ITA Nos. 5630/Mum/2026 and 5822/Mum/2026 (School of St. John the Evangelist v. CIT(E.)), ITA Nos. 5556/Mum/2026 and 5634/Mum/2026 (Fatima High School v. CIT(E.)) and ITA Nos. 5641/Mum/2026 and 5653/Mum/2026 (St. Stanislaus High School v. CIT(E.)), all pronounced on the same date, we set aside the impugned order rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act and direct the learned CIT(E) to grant renewal of registration in accordance with law. Since the rejection of approval under section 80G is purely consequential and no independent adverse finding has been recorded regarding the fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed thereunder, the said order is also set aside with a direction to grant approval under section 80G. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed.

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