BHARATIYA DARSHAN ADHYATMIK KENDRA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4771/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 July 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed furnished the required details and documents in response to the notices. The CIT(Exemptions) orders were passed on an incorrect factual premise of non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected these applications, stating the assessee failed to furnish required details.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) correctly concluded non-compliance by the assessee when the assessee claims to have furnished all required documents and replies.

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

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Shah
For Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 30/07/2026Pronounced: 30/07/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee- trust against the separate orders dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, whereby the assessee’s application for renewal of

2 ITA No. 4770 & 4771/Mum/2026 and others Bharatiya Darshan Adhyatmik Kendra registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential application for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act came to be rejected.

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned orders have proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that the assessee had failed to furnish the details and documents called for by the learned CIT(E). Inviting our attention to the fact-sheet and chronology of events placed in the paper book, it was submitted that pursuant to the first notice dated 28.12.2025, the assessee furnished a detailed reply along with all the requisite documents on 05.01.2026 within the time allowed. Thereafter, in response to the second notice dated 12.01.2026, another detailed reply together with all the supporting documents was filed on 14.01.2026, again within the prescribed time. Thus, according to the learned counsel, every query raised by the learned CIT(E) stood duly complied with, but the replies and documents furnished by the assessee were neither adverted to nor considered while passing the impugned orders.

3.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned orders.

3 ITA No. 4770 & 4771/Mum/2026 and others Bharatiya Darshan Adhyatmik Kendra 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole basis on which the learned CIT(E) has rejected the applications is the alleged non-submission of the requisite details by the assessee. However, from the chronology of events and the documents placed before us, it prima facie appears that the assessee had, in fact, responded to both the notices issued by the learned CIT(E) and had furnished the requisite details within the stipulated time. If the replies and supporting documents were already available on record, the same ought to have been examined before arriving at any conclusion regarding the assessee’s eligibility for renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The impugned orders do not indicate any consideration of these replies and, therefore, appear to have been passed on an incorrect factual assumption that there was no compliance on the part of the assessee.

5.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E). Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine all the replies, documents and evidences stated to have been furnished by the assessee in response to the notices issued during the course of proceedings and

4 ITA No. 4770 & 4771/Mum/2026 and others Bharatiya Darshan Adhyatmik Kendra thereafter adjudicate the applications afresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall also extend full cooperation and furnish such further details as may be called for during the fresh proceedings.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 4770 & 4771/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 30th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 30/07/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. 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 →