AMRITA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER EXIM. WARD 1(1) MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL MTNL TE BUILDING

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 re-registration under the transitional provisions. Accordingly, the assessee filed the application u/sec. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) on 30.09.2025 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 17.01.2026 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. 3. The Ld. AR contended that the assesse is an old Trust and registration was prior to the 01.04.2021. The Ld. AR submitted the reason for non- compliance of notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E) which is reproduced as below:- “The Appellant further submits that the trustees, namely Mr. Shaminder Singh Pujji (Age: 72 years), Mrs. Amina Singh Pujji (Age: 68 years), and Mrs. Koulsoum Houssain (Age: 65 years), are senior citizens and are not well-versed with regular email communications, due to which the said notice remained unnoticed within the stipulated time. The noncompliance was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant. Both the trustees are day in out involved in activities of trust and trust is carrying out activities for handicapped childrens in regards to their education and medical support. We are enclosing some of the photos from the premises of trust where activities are carried on. The trust has been actively working towards social welfare and is committed to its charitable objectives. The Appellant was in the process of compiling the required documents and was ready and willing to furnish the same. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the learned CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration in accordance with law after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.” 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. 4. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favor of the orders of Ld. CIT(E). 5. 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 17.01.2026 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 02.03.2026 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. The assessee is also directed to comply with any notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) in this regard and to furnish all necessary supporting documents/evidence with due diligence in support of its application for registration. Accordingly, the grounds raised in the appeal by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Insofar as the application under Section 80G(5) of the Act is concerned, the decision on the application under Section 12A shall apply mutatis mutandis to this issue as well. Hence, ITA No. 4870/Mum/2026 is also remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with similar directions as stated above. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4869 & 4870/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. 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