SARVODAYA ENGLISH PRIMARY SCHOOL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Brief facts of the case are such that the assessee trust filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. During examination of the application, the Ld. CIT(E) formed a view that the application was incomplete and that the prescribed documents had not been furnished. Consequently, a notice dated 13/11/2025 was issued upon the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2). The Ld. CIT(E) then passed the impugned order stating that no compliance was made by the assessee to the aforesaid notice. According to the Ld. CIT(E), in the absence of necessary compliance, satisfaction regarding the objects of the trust, genuineness of its activities and compliance with other applicable laws could not be arrived at. Accordingly, observing that the statutory time limit for disposal of the application was expiring , the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Act vide order dated 01/03/2026.

The Ld. Counsel for assessee assailed the impugned order and submitted that the very basis on which the application has been rejected is factually incorrect. Inviting our attention to page 6 of the paper book filed by the Assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that a detail

The Ld. Counsel submitted that along with the said reply, the assessee had furnished a detailed note regarding the charitable activities undertaken by the trust, copy of the existing registration of the trust, copy of the trust deed together with annexures and other supporting documents called for by the Ld. CIT(E). It was pointed out that the reply specifically enclosed copies of documents requested by the Ld. CIT(E) and therefore the observation recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee had made no compliance to the notices is contrary to the material available on record.

The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee had been granted provisional registration under section 12AB and had thereafter filed Form No. 10AB within the prescribed period seeking regular registration. It was argued that the rejection order has been passed without considering the documents and explanations already available on record and, therefore, the matter deserves to be restored for fresh consideration.

The Ld. CIT-DR relied upon the impugned order but fairly could not controvert the fact that a reply dated 27/01/2026 had been filed by the assessee.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. The sole basis on which the Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application is “The Applicant has not complied with all terms of the said notice, till date”. Proceeding on the aforesaid premise, the Ld. CIT(E) concluded that satisfaction regarding the objects and genuineness of activities of the trust could not be recorded and consequently rejected the application.

However, from the material placed before us, particularly page 6 of the paper book, we find that the assessee had submitted a written reply dated 27/01/2026 in response to the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E). The contents of the reply further reveal that the assessee had furnished details including a detailed note regarding the charitable activities undertaken by the trust, copy of the existing registration of the trust, copy of the trust deed together with annexures and other supporting documents called for by the Ld. CIT(E).

In our considered view, once a reply has been filed by the assessee, the observation that no compliance whatsoever was made by the assessee is not borne out from the record. Whether the documents furnished were sufficient or whether any further clarification was required is an altogether different matter. However, the rejection of the application on the premise that no compliance

The scheme of section 12AB requires that the prescribed authority to examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities. Such examination necessarily requires consideration of the material and documents furnished by the applicant. Since the impugned order proceeds on a factually incorrect assumption that no reply had been filed by the assessee, the satisfaction recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) stands vitiated.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo consideration. The Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the documents and explanations furnished by the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish such further details as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(E).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.