SATRUNJAY SANKHESHWAR UPASAK RELIGIOUS TRUST,BANDRA EAST vs. WARD 23(3)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4803/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 July 2026AY 2026-275 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the application was rejected solely for non-compliance without examining the merits. Given the civil consequences of registration, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an effective opportunity to comply.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for renewal of registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-compliance with a notice requiring specific documents, stating the notice was not received by the assessee. The assessee claimed the notice was not received due to electronic communication issues and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of a registration renewal application solely on grounds of non-compliance with a notice, without examining the merits, is justified. Whether an assessee should be granted another opportunity to comply when the notice was allegedly not received.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri S. D. Chheda
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, CIT DR
Hearing: 24/07/2026

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 25/02/2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)- Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(E)] for assessment year 2026-27, whereby application for renewal of the registration

Satrunjay Sankheshwar Upasak Religious 2 Trust ITA No. 4803/MUM/2026

under Section 12AB of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) has been rejected.

2.

We have heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the material on record.

3.

The material facts are not in dispute. The assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act on 12.09.2025 seeking renewal of its registration under section 12AB. During the course of the proceedings, the learned CIT(E) issued a notice dated 31.01.2026 calling upon the assessee to furnish the documents and details prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules. As there was no compliance with the said notice, the learned CIT(E), being unable to satisfy himself regarding the statutory requirements contemplated under section 12AB, rejected the application observing as under ;-

“ 2. On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the applicant, it was found that the application was not complete, and all the documents required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was issued to the applicant vide notice dated 31.01.2026 requesting the applicant to furnish the complete set of documents/details as required under Rule 17A(2). However, the applicant has not complied with all terms of the said notice, till date. 3. Since registration under section 12AB is to be granted in terms of the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act after being satisfied about the objects of the trust or institution, the genuineness of activities, and the compliance of any other law

Satrunjay Sankheshwar Upasak Religious 3 Trust ITA No. 4803/MUM/2026

for the time being in force as are material for the purposes of achieving its objects. In absence of necessary compliance by the applicant, the undersigned is unable to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on these parameters. As such, the undersigned is left with no other option but to reject the application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. However, the applicant is at liberty to pursue the remedies available in Statute, without any prejudice. 4. In conclusion, this application for renewal of registration stands rejected on grounds of non-compliance to all the terms of notices issued to the applicant.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice issued by the learned CIT(E) was not received by the assessee, possibly on account of issues relating to electronic communication. It was further submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to furnish all the requisite documents if one more opportunity is granted.

5.

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts on record, we are of the view that the application has been rejected solely on account of non-compliance with the notice issued by the learned CIT(E), without examination of the merits of the assessee's claim. Since the grant or renewal of registration under section 12AB has significant civil consequences, the matter deserves to be examined after affording the assessee an effective opportunity of compliance. In the interest of justice, therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of

Satrunjay Sankheshwar Upasak Religious 4 Trust ITA No. 4803/MUM/2026

the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish the requisite documents and to substantiate its claim. The assessee shall extend full cooperation and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/07/2026 Z.U., P.S.

Satrunjay Sankheshwar Upasak Religious 5 Trust ITA No. 4803/MUM/2026

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// (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 →