SHREE VARDHAMAN STHANAKVASI JAIN SHRAVAK SANGH MAROL,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an old Trust with existing manual registration prior to 01.04.2021. After the amendment the Trust has a vested statutory right of reregistration under the transitional provisions. Accordingly, the assessee filed the application u/sec. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) on 29.09.2025 seeking renewal of registration u/sec. 12AB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) after due verification of the Form No.10AB filed by the assessee, it is found that the documents required to accompany application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was duly issued to the applicant dated 10.01.2026 and requesting the assessee to submit the complete documents. But the assessee remained non-complied before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

The Ld. AR contended that the assesse is an old Trust and registration was prior to the 01.04.2021. The Ld. CIT(E) without allowing the adequate and reasonable, effective opportunity of being heard only issued a single notice and rejected the appeal of the assessee. It is clear violation of the principle of natural justice. Even, the Ld. CIT(E) had not mentioned any specific documents, which was duly absence in the application. The impugned order is legally untenable and liable to be set aside.

The Ld. DR argued and stands in favor of the order of Ld. CIT(E).

We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is an old Trust and registered in prior to 01.04.2021. After due amendments, the assessee has vested statutory right of reregistration under the transitional provision. Accordingly, the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB for registration u/sec. 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) found that the application is incomplete due to absence of certain documents. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(E) issued a notice on 10.01.2026 and due to noncompliance the said notice, the application is duly rejected. The Ld. AR contended that no sufficient opportunity was duly allowed to assessee for complying the said proceeding. Further, no specific lacuna was found for rejecting the said application. In absence of the requisite documents, the Ld. CIT(E) recorded that he was unable to satisfied himself regarding the objects of the assessee. The genuineness of the activities, and compliance with other applicable laws for the time being in force as are material for the purposes of achieving its objects which are mandatory statutory proceeding for grant of registration u/sec. 12AB of the Act. At the same time, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. AR that non-compliance was occurred without allowing a reasonable opportunity and no specific lacuna was found by the by the Ld. CIT(E). In view of the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication of assessee’s application for registration u/sec. 12AB of the Act in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file all requisite documents and details as called for and the Ld. CIT(E) was allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee before passing a speaking order.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.3123/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of July 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 29/07/2026 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI