KALPANA DILIP MEHTA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. WARD 1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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. 4950 AND 4951/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) Kalpana Dilip Foundation EXEM. Ward 1(4), 51 Anupam Building, 11, Manav Mumbai Mandir Road Walkeshwar, Mumbai, Mumbai 400006 PAN No. AABTK5301R Assessee by Shri Madhav Mehta 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 02.03.2026, 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. 4950 And 4951/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 12AB of the Act, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3 ITA No. 4950 And 4951/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) in section 80G(5)(i), the CIT(E) held that the application under section 80G had thereby become untenable and rejected it by a separate order of the same date.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred; 1. In denying the appellant a re-registration u/s 12AB of the Act. 2. not considering the documents submitted along with the application of provisional registration, based on which the Department could have verified the genuineness of the activities carried out by the trust. 3. In rejecting the appellant’s renewal application on purely procedural grounds without any merit-based examination. 4. In not giving the assessee a show cause notice before rejecting the said application. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds as may be advised from time to time. 5. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 4951/Mum/2026 are:

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), erred;

4 ITA No. 4950 And 4951/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 1. In denying the appellant a re-registration u/s 80G of the Act solely on the basis of rejection of registration u/s 12AB, without independently examining eligibility conditions under Section 80G(5) 2. not considering the documents submitted along with the application of provisional registration, based on which the Department could have verified the genuineness of the activities carried out by the trust. 3. In rejecting the appellant’s renewal application on purely procedural grounds without any merit-based examination. 4. In not giving the assessee a show cause notice before rejecting the said application. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds as may be advised from time to time. 6. The learned Authorised Representative [“AR”] submitted that the non-compliance with the notice dated 15.01.2026 was inadvertent, as the assessee had missed downloading the notice from the portal. It was submitted that the CIT(E) rejected the application under section 12AB without issuing any further communication or affording an effective opportunity to remedy the deficiencies. The learned AR further submitted that the documents furnished with the application and the assessee’s activities had not been examined on merits. It was, therefore,

5 ITA No. 4950 And 4951/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) prayed that the order under section 12AB be set aside and the application be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing. As regards the application under section 80G, the learned AR submitted that its rejection was solely consequential to the rejection under section 12AB and, therefore, that matter also required restoration.

6 ITA No. 4950 And 4951/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 9. We further find that the impugned order states in general terms that the application was incomplete, that all the documents required to accompany the application were not furnished and that all the terms of the notice were not complied with. The order, however, does not identify the particular documents or information that remained to be furnished, nor does it record any examination on merits of the documents accompanying the application or of the objects and activities of the assessee. The statement of facts acknowledges that the notice dated 15.01.2026 was missed and, therefore, no response was filed. Nevertheless, having regard to the consequences of rejection and the fact that the merits of the application remain unexamined, we are of the considered view that one more effective opportunity should be afforded to the assessee to furnish the requisite material and explain its case.

7 ITA No. 4950 And 4951/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) with the original application as well as any further material furnished by the assessee; 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. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration under section 12AB.

8 ITA No. 4950 And 4951/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 13. In view of the above, the substantive grounds in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. The general grounds do not require separate adjudication.

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