SNEH SAGAR SAI MITRA MANDAL,BANDRA MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5100/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2026AY 2025-2610 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection was made without a proper examination of the merits and without granting an effective opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, applied for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected both applications due to non-compliance with a notice seeking additional documents, citing lack of satisfaction regarding the trust's objects and activities.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval was justified without a proper opportunity and examination of merits. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated.

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 Dnyanesh Patade
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. 5089 AND 5100/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) Sneh Sagar Sai Mitra Mandal CIT(Exemption), Ridhi Sidhi Sainath Mandir Mumbai Kashiram Kolte, Mumbai PAN No. AAMAS1672H Assessee by Shri Dnyanesh Patade, (Virtually) 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 01.03.2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”], in Form No. 10AD. ITA No. 5089/Mum/2026 arises from the rejection of the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], whereas ITA No. 5100/Mum/2026 arises from the rejection of its application for renewal

2 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) of approval under section 80G of the Act. Since the applications are connected and the rejection under section 80G is founded upon the rejection under section 12AB, both appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

The assessee is stated to be a charitable trust engaged in religious- cum-charitable activities. On 30.09.2025, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB. On verification, the CIT(E) found that the application was incomplete and that all documents required to accompany it had not been furnished. A notice dated 30.01.2026 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents and details contemplated under Rule 17A(2).

3.

The CIT(E) observed that the assessee had not complied with all the terms of the notice. He further observed that, in the absence of the necessary compliance, he was unable to record satisfaction regarding the objects of the assessee, the genuineness of its activities and compliance with other laws material for achieving its objects. The application for renewal of registration under section 12AB was accordingly rejected by the impugned order dated 01.03.2026.

3 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) 4. The assessee had also filed Form No. 10AB on 30.09.2025 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), seeking renewal of approval under section 80G. In the order concerning section 80G, the CIT(E) noted that the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had been rejected by order dated 01.03.2026. Referring to the condition prescribed 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.

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

6.

The grounds raised in ITA No. 5089/Mum/2026 are: 1. General Ground: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai (CIT(E)) erred in passing the order dated 01.03.2026 rejecting the application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB filed in Form 10AB, which is bad in law, contrary to facts, and liable to be quashed. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The learned CIT(E) grossly erred in rejecting the application in violation of the settled principles of natural justice, inasmuch as: • Only one notice dated 30.01.2026 was issued seeking details; • No adequate, effective, or final opportunity of being heard was granted;

4 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) • No show cause notice proposing rejection was issued. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 3. Non-compliance was Neither Wilful nor Deliberate The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that: • The Appellant is a small charitable trust managed by gig workers / volunteers; • The trust does not have sophisticated administrative or compliance infrastructure; • The notice issued electronically was inadvertently missed due to limited technological awareness and monitoring limitations. Accordingly, the alleged non-compliance was bona fide, unintentional, and reasonable, and ought not to have resulted in adverse action. 4. Prayer for Restoration / Remand In view of the above, the Appellant prays that: • The impugned order be set aside, and • The matter be restored to the file of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing. 7. The grounds raised in ITA No. 5100/Mum/2026 are: 1. General Ground The order passed by the Ld. CIT (Exemptions) is bad in law, contrary to facts, and liable to be quashed. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

5 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) a. The opportunity provided on 30.01.2026 was inadequate and ineffective, and the order has been passed without granting a meaningful opportunity of being heard. b. The Appellant, being a small charitable organisation run by individuals with limited technical and legal expertise, could not effectively respond, which has not been duly considered. 3. Parallel Challenge to 12AB Rejection a. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to consider that the rejection of registration u/s 12AB, which forms the sole basis for denial of 80G approval, is itself unsustainable in law. b. Consequently, the rejection of 80G approval becomes premature and consequentially invalid. 4. Prayer for Restoration The Appellant prays that: • The order passed by CIT(E) be set aside, and • The matter be restored for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity. 8. The learned Authorised Representative [“AR”], reiterating the facts and the material placed in the paper books, submitted that only one notice dated 30.01.2026 was issued and that the applications were rejected without any further or final opportunity of hearing or a show cause notice proposing rejection. It was submitted that the assessee is a small charitable trust managed by local volunteers, most of whom are gig workers, and that it does not have a sophisticated administrative or

6 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) compliance infrastructure. The electronic notice was inadvertently missed due to limited technological awareness and monitoring limitations. The non-compliance was therefore stated to be bona fide and unintentional.

9.

Further, the learned AR submitted that the order under section 12AB contains no adverse finding that the objects of the assessee are not charitable or that its activities are not genuine. The rejection was stated to be solely on account of non-compliance with the solitary notice. The assessee undertook to comply with the notices issued in the set-aside proceedings without unreasonable delay or seeking adjournments. It was accordingly prayed that the order under section 12AB be set aside and the application be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after granting a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing.

10.

As regards the application under section 80G, the learned AR submitted that its rejection was entirely consequential to the rejection of the application under section 12AB. It was therefore prayed that the order under section 80G also be set aside and that application be restored for fresh consideration.

7 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) 11. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned orders of the CIT(E).

12.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The application under section 12AB was rejected because the CIT(E) could not record the requisite satisfaction in the absence of compliance with the notice dated 30.01.2026. Row 10 of Form No. 10AD also records 30.01.2026 as the date on which an opportunity was afforded. No further notice or opportunity is identified in the impugned order. Although the concluding paragraph of the annexure uses the plural expression “notices”, the order does not identify any notice other than the notice dated 30.01.2026.

13.

We further find that the impugned order states generally that the application was incomplete, that all documents required to accompany it had not been furnished and that the terms of the notice had not been complied with. The order, however, does not identify the particular documents or information that remained outstanding, nor does it record any examination on merits of the material stated to have accompanied the application, the objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities. Thus, the merits of the application remain unexamined.

8 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) 14. The assessee has explained that the electronic notice was inadvertently missed by its volunteer trustees due to limited technological awareness and monitoring limitations. It has also expressed its readiness to furnish all requisite documents and information and has undertaken to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings. Having regard to the consequences of rejection, the absence of any examination on merits and the explanation placed before us, 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 the application 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. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and furnish the requisitioned material within the time allowed. We make it clear that we

9 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration under section 12AB.

16.

The order rejecting the application under section 80G rests solely upon the rejection of the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB. Since the order concerning section 12AB has been set aside and that application has been restored for fresh adjudication, the foundation of the consequential rejection under section 80G does not presently survive.

17.

We, therefore, set aside the order dated 01.03.2026 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. We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for approval under section 80G.

18.

In view of the above, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 in ITA No. 5089/Mum/2026 and all the grounds in ITA No. 5100/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 5 in ITA No.

10 ITA No. 5089 And 5100/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2025-26) 5089/Mum/2026 is general in nature and does not require separate adjudication.

19.

In the result, ITA No. 5089/Mum/2026 and ITA No. 5100/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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →