SHREEMATI PUNAIBEN KARSAN LADHU V O JAIN KANYA CHHATRALAYA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5083/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity to present its case and that the merits of the applications were not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed applications for renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected these applications, citing non-compliance and lack of adequate opportunity. The assessee appealed these rejections.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee and without examining the merits of the applications.

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, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri Abdul Tawbawala
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 Nos. 5083, 5144 AND 5187/MUM/2026 (Assessment Years: NA) SHREEMATI PUNAIBEN CIT (EXEMPTION) KARSAN LADHU VO JAIN MUMBAI KANYA CHHATRALAYA 1, ALF GREEM VILET, GOKHALE ROAD DADAR WEST, MUMBAI PAN NO. AAATS 0213 R Assessee by Shri Abdul Tawbawala 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 three appeals by the assessee are directed against three separate orders, all dated 01.03.2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”], in Form No. 10AD. ITA Nos. 5083/Mum/2026 and 5187/Mum/2026 arise from the rejection of two applications for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], whereas ITA No. 5144/Mum/2026 arises from the rejection of the application for renewal

3 ITA Nos. 5083, 5144 And 5187/Mum/2026 (Assessment Years NA) 4. The assessee had also filed Form No. 10AB on 29.09.2025 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), seeking renewal of approval under section 80G. That application was assigned No. CIT (Exemptions), MUMBAI/2025-26/12AA/24222. In the order concerning section 80G, the CIT(E) noted that the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had been rejected on 01.03.2026. Referring to section 80G(5)(i), he held that the application under section 80G had thereby become untenable and rejected it by a separate order of the same date.

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. The grounds raised in ITA No. 5083/Mum/2026 are:

1.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai has erred in rejecting the application in Form -10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act filed by the appellant Trust on 29.09.2025 on grounds of non- compliance to all terms of notices issued to appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai has erred in rejecting the application in Form -10AB u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) vide order dtd. 01.03.2026 without providing adequate opportunity to appellant.

5 ITA Nos. 5083, 5144 And 5187/Mum/2026 (Assessment Years NA) 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai has erred in rejecting the application in Form -10AB u/s.80G(5) vide order dtd. 01.03.2026 without providing adequate opportunity to appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai has erred in rejecting the application in Form -10AB u/s.80G(5) vide order dtd. 01.03.2026 without issuing a Show Cause Notice for rejecting the application. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai has erred in passing an order in Form 10AD dtd. 01.03.2026 and erred in rejecting the application on technical grounds. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai has erred in not appreciating the fact that adjournment was sought by the appellant against Notice dated 09.01.2026. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify all or any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.

7.

The grounds raised in ITA No. 5187/Mum/2026 are:

1.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai has erred in rejecting the application in Form -10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of

7 ITA Nos. 5083, 5144 And 5187/Mum/2026 (Assessment Years NA) assessee in response to the notice dated 09.01.2026. The CIT(E), however, did not appreciate or deal with that request and proceeded to reject the applications without granting an adequate and effective opportunity to the assessee.

9.

The learned AR further submitted that application No. CIT (Exemptions), MUMBAI/2025-26/12AA/24671, forming the subject matter of ITA No. 5083/Mum/2026, was a duplicate application. The substantive challenge to the rejection of registration under section 12AB is being pursued in ITA No. 5187/Mum/2026 against the order relating to application No. CIT (Exemptions), MUMBAI/2025-26/12AA/24867. He, therefore, submitted that ITA No. 5083/Mum/2026 may be treated as infructuous and that the other two appeals be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

10.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned orders of the CIT(E).

11.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. We first take up ITA No. 5083/Mum/2026. The record shows that two applications under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) were filed by the same assessee on 29.09.2025 and were rejected by materially

9 ITA Nos. 5083, 5144 And 5187/Mum/2026 (Assessment Years NA) the particular documents or information that remained outstanding. Nor does it record any examination on merits of the material accompanying the application, the objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities. Thus, the merits of the application remain unexamined.

14.

Having regard to the consequences of rejection, the fact that only one notice is identified in the order, the submission that an adjournment had been sought against that notice, and the absence of any examination on merits, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be afforded one effective opportunity to place the requisite material before the CIT(E).

15.

Accordingly, the order dated 01.03.2026 rejecting application No. CIT (Exemptions), MUMBAI/2025-26/12AA/24867 for renewal of registration under section 12AB is set aside and the matter 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, that remain to be furnished; grant a reasonable and effective opportunity to furnish the same; consider the material filed with the original application as well as any further material furnished by the assessee; and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

11 ITA Nos. 5083, 5144 And 5187/Mum/2026 (Assessment Years NA) 18. In view of the above, ITA No. 5083/Mum/2026 is dismissed as infructuous and its grounds require no adjudication. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 in ITA Nos. 5144/Mum/2026 and 5187/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 6 in each of those appeals is general in nature and does not require separate adjudication.

19.

In the result, ITA No. 5083/Mum/2026 is dismissed as infructuous, whereas ITA Nos. 5144/Mum/2026 and 5187/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 →