GSB SABHA MULUND (REGD.),MULUND WEST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CUMBALLA HILL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5182/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2026AY 2026-2710 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored both applications for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required documents and to pass a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, applied for renewal of its registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected both applications for non-compliance with a notice requiring additional documents, citing the redevelopment of the assessee's premises as a reason for delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the renewal applications without granting a reasonable opportunity and considering the explanation for non-compliance.

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 Saukhya Lakade
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. 5181 AND 5182/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) GSB Sabha Mulund (Redg.) Commissioner of Income 101, Om Residency, Chandanbala Tax (Exemption), CHS Ltd., Murar Road, Mulund Mumbai West, Mumbai, Maharashtra PAN No. AAATG5712H Assessee by Shri Saukhya Lakade 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 28.02.2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”], in Form No. 10AD. ITA No. 5181/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. 5182/Mum/2026 arises from the rejection of its application for renewal

2 ITA No. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 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 established in the year 1957. According to the statement of facts, it has carried on charitable activities for over six decades, principally involving the promotion and preservation of Hindu Dharma through cultural and social activities of the GSB sect, educational scholarships and assistance to the needy, medical relief, and the promotion of music, art, culture and drama. It is further stated that the assessee was registered under section 12A/12AA and enjoyed approval under section 80G.

3.

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 02.01.2026 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents and details contemplated under Rule 17A(2).

3 ITA No. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 4. 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 28.02.2026.

5.

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 28.02.2026. 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.

6.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

The grounds raised in ITA No. 5181/Mum/2026 are:

4 ITA No. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 1. The learned CIT (E) has erred in the passing the order for cancellation of registration u/s. 12AB without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This order has been passed in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The learned CIT (E) has erred in rejecting registration on mere grounds of non-compliance to the notice. 3. The learned CIT (E) has erred in not considering the genuine hardships caused to the appellant trust for not being able to file the documents within the time allowed. 4. The Appellant prays to allow it to add, alter, amend, modify and/or delete any or all grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. The grounds raised in ITA No. 5182/Mum/2026 are:

1.

The learned CIT (E) has erred in the passing the order for cancellation of registration u/s. 12AB without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This order has been passed in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The learned CIT (E) has erred in rejecting registration on mere grounds of non-compliance to the notice. 3. The learned CIT (E) has erred in not considering the genuine hardships caused to the appellant trust for not being able to file the documents within the time allowed.

5 ITA No. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 4. The Appellant prays to allow it to add, alter, amend, modify and/or delete any or all grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 7. We note that the grounds raised in ITA No. 5182/Mum/2026 are identical to those raised in ITA No. 5181/Mum/2026 and refer to registration under section 12AB, whereas the order impugned in ITA No. 5182/Mum/2026 pertains to the rejection of approval under section 80G of the Act. Since the rejection under section 80G is consequential to the rejection under section 12AB, we treat the said grounds as consequential and proceed to decide the appeal accordingly.

8.

The learned Authorised Representative [“AR”], reiterating the statement of facts, submitted that the assessee had obtained provisional registration under section 12AB on 06.04.2022, which was valid up to 31.03.2026, and that the application in Form No. 10AB filed on 30.09.2025 was within time. It was submitted that the assessee’s premises had undergone redevelopment and, as a consequence, its records and documents had been shifted and stored. Considerable time was therefore required to retrieve, collate and compile the records, some of which dated back to the establishment of the trust in 1957.

6 ITA No. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 9. The learned AR further submitted that, upon receipt of the notice dated 02.01.2026, the assessee had orally sought an extension up to 15.02.2026. Despite its efforts, the requisite documents could not be compiled and submitted before the impugned orders were passed on 28.02.2026. The failure to comply was stated to be neither deliberate nor intended to obstruct the proceedings, but arose from the logistical disruption caused by redevelopment of the premises and the consequent inaccessibility of old records. 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.

11.

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

7 ITA No. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 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 02.01.2026. Row 10 of Form No. 10AD also records 02.01.2026 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 02.01.2026.

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.

14.

The explanation placed before us is that redevelopment of the assessee’s premises had necessitated shifting and storage of its records,

8 ITA No. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) including old records, and that time was required to retrieve and compile them. The assessee has maintained that the non-compliance was not deliberate and has sought an opportunity to furnish the requisite material. Having regard to the consequences of rejection, the absence of any examination on merits and the specific explanation for non- compliance, 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 28.02.2026 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. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 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 28.02.2026 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. 18. We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for approval under section 80G.

19.

In view of the above, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4 in each appeal is general in nature and does not require separate adjudication.

10 ITA No. 5181 And 5182/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year 2026-27) 20. In the result, ITA No. 5181/Mum/2026 and ITA No. 5182/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 →