SACRED HEART ENGLISH TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5699/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 August 202614 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot be the sole ground for rejecting renewal of registration under Section 12AB if the institution is otherwise established and recognized. The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications on this ground alone.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable educational institution, applied for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected the applications because the assessee could not produce a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association, stating that the registration under the Public Trusts Act was insufficient.

What were the issues?

Whether the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association is a valid ground to reject an application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and consequential approval under Section 80G for a charitable institution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, CIT DR
Hearing: 28/07/2026Pronounced: 05/08/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH

These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee, Sacred Heart English Teaching High School, against two separate orders both dated 29.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”]. The first appeal in ITA No. 5691/Mum/2026 arises from the order passed under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), whereby the learned CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s

2 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School application filed in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of its registration under section 12AB of the Act. The second appeal in ITA No. 5699/Mum/2026 arises from the consequential order rejecting the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. Since both the appeals arise out of common facts and involve interconnected issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2.

The assessee is a public charitable educational institution administering Sacred Heart English Teaching High School, Worli, Mumbai. The institution was established as a primary school in the year 1952 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 institution is established and administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and functions under the religious jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bombay. It 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

3 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School approval under section 80G. Upon expiry of the earlier registration period, the assessee filed the present applications in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB and the consequential approval under section 80G.

3.

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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay, its internal governance was regulated by Canon Law. The assessee further furnished the statutory application filed before the Charity Commissioner on 14.09.1962, the certificate of registration dated 12.12.1962 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

4 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School section 12AB and, as a necessary consequence thereof, also rejected the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G.

4.

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.), ITA Nos. 5641/Mum/2026 and 5653/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus High School v. CIT(E.) and ITA Nos. 5684/Mum/2026 and 5679/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus Institution 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

5 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School 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.

5.

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 1952 and has throughout been carrying on the charitable activity of imparting education. 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 statutory application filed before the Charity Commissioner on 14.09.1962, the certificate of registration dated 12.12.1962 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

6 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School 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 change either in the charitable objects of the institution or in the nature of its educational activities and, therefore, the learned CIT(E) was not justified in refusing renewal solely on account of the non-production of a written trust deed. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed upon Laxminarayan Maharaj v. CIT [(1984) 150 ITR 465 (MP)], Pr. CIT (Exemptions) v. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid [(2018) 402 ITR 29 (Guj.)], CIT v. Hazrat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust [(2002) 256 ITR 193 (Guj.)], Ananda Social & Educational Trust v. CIT [(2020) 426 ITR 340 (SC)], Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT (Exemptions) [(2026) 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bom.)], as well as the decisions of the Tribunal in Tsurphu Labrang v. DIT (Exemption) [(2016) 159 ITD 848 (Delhi-Trib.)], Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (Exemption) [(2016) 72 taxmann.com 165 (Cochin-Trib.)], Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple v. CIT (Exemptions) (ITA No. 89/Hyd/2016, order dated 17.06.2016) and Shree Ram Gopal Temple Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) [(2025) 178 taxmann.com 698 (Chandigarh- Trib.)].

7 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School 6. 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 institution, the legal framework governing its administration and the fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed under section 12AB of the Act. According to the Revenue, the application submitted before the Charity Commissioner and the registration certificate issued under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act merely recognise the existence of the trust and cannot substitute the constitutive document creating the trust. It was, therefore, contended that, in the absence of a written trust deed or Memorandum of Association, the learned CIT(E) was justified in declining renewal of registration under section 12AB and, consequently, refusing approval under section 80G.

7.

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

8 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School 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.), ITA Nos. 5641/Mum/2026 and 5653/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus High School v. CIT(E.) and ITA Nos. 5684/Mum/2026 and 5679/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E.), all pronounced on the same date. 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 the assessee and the legal submissions advanced before us are substantially identical to those considered in the aforesaid decisions. The learned Departmental Representative has also not been able to point out any distinguishing feature, either on facts or in law, warranting a departure from the view already taken by us. We shall, therefore, apply the ratio and reasoning recorded in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present appeals.

8.

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

9 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School 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.), ITA Nos. 5641/Mum/2026 and 5653/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus High School v. CIT(E.) and ITA Nos. 5684/Mum/2026 and 5679/Mum/2026, St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E.), all pronounced on the same date. In the aforesaid decisions, after an elaborate examination of the statutory framework contained in 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 or Memorandum of Association cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusing registration under section 12AB.

9.

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 educational institution which has been imparting education since the year 1952. It is duly registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and has continuously enjoyed registration under section 12A and thereafter under section

10 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School 12AB of the Act, besides approval under section 80G. There is no dispute before us regarding the charitable nature of its objects, the genuineness of its educational 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 advanced before us being substantially identical to those considered in the aforesaid companion decisions, we find no justification to adopt a different view. ITA No.5691 and 5699- Mum-2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School.doc

10.

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

11 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School 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 documentary evidence evidencing its creation, establishment and continued existence as a public charitable institution.

11.

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 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

12 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

12.

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 object of imparting education 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 requires that an identical controversy arising from substantially identical facts should receive an identical judicial determination. We, therefore, find no reason to depart from the view already taken by this Bench in the companion matters decided on the same date.

13.

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.)), ITA Nos. 5641/Mum/2026 and 5653/Mum/2026 (St. Stanislaus High School v. CIT(E.)) and ITA Nos. 5684/Mum/2026 and 5679/Mum/2026 (St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E.)), all pronounced on the same

13 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School 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.

14.

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

Order pronounced on 5th August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 05/08/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

14 ITA No.5691 & 5699/Mum/2026 Sacred Heart English Teaching High School

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →