RESOURCE & SUPPORT CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5752/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 August 2026AY 2025-267 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the assessee's application for 12AB renewal and did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to furnish required details. Consequently, the 80G rejection, being consequential, also lacked independent examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected both applications, citing incomplete documentation for the 12AB renewal and the rejection of the 12AB application as the sole reason for rejecting the 80G approval.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the assessee's application for renewal of registration and approval, and whether sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee.

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: Shri Mandra Vaidya
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, CIT DR
Hearing: 30/07/2026Pronounced: 05/08/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These two appeals by the assessee arise out of separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, both relating to the applications filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB and renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since both

2 ITA No.5731 & 5752/Mum/2026 Resource and Support Centre for Development the appeals arise from common facts and the rejection of the application under section 80G is purely consequential to the rejection of registration under section 12AB, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

ITA No.5732/Mum/2026 – Renewal of Registration under Section 12AB

2.

The brief facts borne out from the impugned order are that the assessee had filed an application in Form No.10AB on 30.09.2025 seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) observed that the application was not complete and that all the documents required under Rule 17A(2) had not been furnished. Accordingly, a notice dated 07.01.2026 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite details. According to the learned CIT(E), there was no complete compliance with the said notice and, therefore, he was unable to satisfy himself regarding the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and compliance with other applicable laws. On this premise alone, the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB came to be rejected.

3.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order has been passed without properly

3 ITA No.5731 & 5752/Mum/2026 Resource and Support Centre for Development appreciating the material available on record and without granting an effective opportunity to explain or furnish such further particulars as may have been required. It was submitted that the assessee has all along been carrying on its charitable activities and was willing to furnish any information or documents that may be considered necessary for examining its claim on merits. It was, therefore, pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity of hearing. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The power conferred upon the learned CIT(E) while considering an application for registration or renewal under section 12AB necessarily requires him to examine the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and such other statutory requirements as are contemplated under the Act. Such an exercise necessarily presupposes due consideration of the material placed on record as well as an effective opportunity to the applicant to explain or furnish any further particulars that may be required for arriving at a proper satisfaction. In the present case, the impugned order proceeds substantially on the premise that the assessee had not complied with all the requirements contained in the notice issued by the

4 ITA No.5731 & 5752/Mum/2026 Resource and Support Centre for Development learned CIT(E). However, no discussion has been made with regard to the nature of the documents allegedly not furnished or as to why the material available on record was insufficient for examining the assessee’s eligibility. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine the assessee’s application afresh, consider all documents and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after granting due and effective opportunity of hearing. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s claim and all issues are left open for fresh consideration.

5.

The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the fresh proceedings and furnish all such documents, records and explanations as may be called for by the learned CIT(E), who shall thereafter decide the application independently and strictly in accordance with law. Subject to these observations, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.5732/Mum/2026 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

5 ITA No.5731 & 5752/Mum/2026 Resource and Support Centre for Development

ITA No.5731/Mum/2026 – Renewal of Approval under Section 80G

6.

The second appeal relates to the rejection of the assessee’s application for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. From the impugned order, it is evident that the learned CIT(E) has rejected the application solely on the ground that the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had already been rejected and, therefore, one of the essential conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) was not fulfilled. No independent examination of the assessee’s claim under section 80G has been undertaken.

7.

Since we have already restored the issue relating to renewal of registration under section 12AB to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, the consequential rejection of approval under section 80G also cannot survive independently. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed under section 80G and restore this issue as well to the file of the learned CIT(E), who shall reconsider the assessee’s application afresh after adjudicating the application under section 12AB and thereafter decide the claim for renewal of approval under section 80G in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order after granting due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6 ITA No.5731 & 5752/Mum/2026 Resource and Support Centre for Development

8.

In the result, both the impugned orders are set aside and the respective matters are restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all requisite documents and details as may be called for. Since we have restored the matters for fresh consideration, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 5th August, 2026.

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

7 ITA No.5731 & 5752/Mum/2026 Resource and Support Centre for Development 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 →