ASIAN HEART PAEDIATRIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCONE-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4766/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2026AY 2026-277 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the rejection orders lacked specificity regarding the deficiencies and did not demonstrate that the assessee was afforded an effective opportunity to rectify them. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G were rejected by the CIT(E) for alleged non-compliance with a notice. The assessee contended that the non-compliance was due to procedural constraints and that substantial documents were already provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications for registration and approval without providing an effective opportunity to the assessee and without specifying the exact deficiencies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Rahul
For Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4766 AND 4767/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) ASIAN HEART PAEDIATRIC COMMISSIONER OF CHARITABLE TRUST, GN INCOME TAX BLOCK ,BANDRA KURLA (EXEMPTIONS), COMPLEX BANDRA MUMBAI EAST MUMBAI-400051 PAN NO. AABTA3983H Assessee by Shri Rahul Revenue by Shri Rajdeep Singh CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24 / 07 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 31 / 07 / 2026.

ORDER PER: SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR :

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 25.02.2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”], in Form No. 10AD. Since the appeals arise from connected applications made by the same assessee and the rejection of the application under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] is founded upon the rejection of the application for renewal of registration under section

2 ITA No. 4766 AND 4767/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 12AB of the Act, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 4766/Mum/2026 are reproduced verbatim as under:

1.a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, [CIT(E)], erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB r.w.s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) filed in Form No. 10AB on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the notice (issued on 17.01.2026) by the appellant. 1.b) The learned CIT (E) failed to appreciate that the non- compliance with the aforesaid notice was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to procedural and administrative constraints. 2. Without prejudice to what has been stated above, the CIT(E) failed to appreciate the fact that substantial details called vide Notice dated 17/01/2026 were furnished along with the application filed on 25-09-2025. 3. The CIT (E) to be directed to cancel the rejection order and grant registration under section 12AB of the Act. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, to alter and/or amend the grounds of appeal as and when given.

3 ITA No. 4766 AND 4767/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 4767/Mum/2026 are reproduced verbatim as under:

1.a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, [CIT(E)], erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) filed in Form No. 10AB on the ground of alleged non- compliance by the notice (issued on 17.01.2026) by the appellant. 1.b) The learned CIT (E) failed to appreciate that the non- compliance with the aforesaid notice was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to procedural and administrative constraints. 2. Without prejudice to what has been stated above, the CIT(E) failed to appreciate the fact that substantial details called vide Notice dated 17/01/2026 were furnished along with the application filed on 25-09-2025. 3. The CIT(E) to be directed to cancel the rejection order and grant registration under section 80G of the Act. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, to alter and/or amend the grounds of appeal as and when given. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the CIT(E) had issued only one notice dated 17.01.2026 and that no effective opportunity was afforded to the assessee before rejection of the

4 ITA No. 4766 AND 4767/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) applications. It was submitted that the alleged non-compliance was neither intentional nor deliberate and had occurred due to procedural and administrative constraints. The learned AR further contended that substantial documents and details called for by the said notice had already been furnished along with the application filed by the assessee, but the CIT(E) failed to take cognisance of those documents. It was accordingly submitted that the rejection orders be set aside and the matters be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after granting an effective opportunity of hearing. As regards the application under section 80G, it was submitted that its rejection was merely consequential to the rejection of the application under section 12AB and, therefore, that matter also required reconsideration.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned orders of the CIT(E). However, the learned Departmental Representative raised no objection to the matters being restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. The record forming part of the impugned order concerning section 12AB mentions only one notice dated

5 ITA No. 4766 AND 4767/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 17.01.2026. Row 10 of Form No. 10AD also records 17.01.2026 as the date on which opportunity was afforded. Although the concluding paragraph of the annexure uses the plural expression “notices”, no notice other than the notice dated 17.01.2026 is identified in the order.

7.

We further find that the impugned order states generally that the application was incomplete, that all accompanying documents were not furnished, and that all the terms of the notice were not complied with. The order, however, does not specify the particular documents that were allegedly absent, the precise requirement that remained unfulfilled, or whether the material stated by the assessee to have accompanied the application was examined. In these circumstances, and particularly when the assessee asserts that substantial documents called for had already been furnished with the application, the issue requires factual verification after affording a clear and effective opportunity to remove any specific deficiency. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee's eligibility for registration under section 12AB.

8.

Accordingly, the order dated 25.02.2026 rejecting the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB is set aside and the matter

6 ITA No. 4766 AND 4767/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) is restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(E) shall communicate to the assessee the specific documents or information, if any, still required; grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to furnish the same; consider the documents filed with the original application as well as any further material furnished pursuant to such opportunity; and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and furnish the requisitioned material within the time allowed.

9.

The order rejecting approval under section 80G rests entirely upon the rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB. Since the order concerning section 12AB has been set aside and the application has been restored for fresh adjudication, the sole foundation of the consequential rejection under section 80G cannot presently survive.

10.

We, therefore, set aside the order dated 25.02.2026 passed in respect of the application under section 80G and restore that application also to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) shall decide it afresh, in accordance with law, after deciding the application under section 12AB and after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

7 ITA No. 4766 AND 4767/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 11. We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee's eligibility for approval under section 80G.

12.

In view of the above, the substantive grounds in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. The general grounds do not require separate adjudication.

13.

In the result, ITA No. 4766/Mum/2026 and ITA No. 4767/Mum/2026 filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31/07/2026 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 31 /07 / 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER,

ASSISTANT 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 →