SHREE 1008 SHANTINATH DIGAMBER JAIN TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPT), MALABAR HILL MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.2563/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27)

Shree 1008 Shantinath Digamber Jain ITO (Exem)-2(3) Trust Room No. 617, MTNL Building, 75, Bombay Mutual Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026 Vs. 1st Floor, Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

PAN/GIR No. AAFTS 3012 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

: Shri D. C. Jain Appellant by Respondent by : Shri Rajdeep Singh, CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 14.07.2026 : 27.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:

Present appeal has been filed by the assesse, challenging the order dated 19.01.2026

passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai rejecting

assessee’s application seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

reveal that the assessee is a Religious and Charitable Trust maintaining a Jain Temple. The

Trust was incorporated on 18.12.1991 and is registered with Charity Commissioner,

Bombay. Registration u/s. 12A of the Act was granted to the assessee by the Director of

Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai on 27.09.2007. After change in the statutory provision

relating to registration of Trusts the assessee filed an application seeking renewal of

2 ITA No. 2563/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2026-27) Shree 1008 Shantinath Digamber Jain Trust vs. ITO (Exem) registration and the registration was renewed for a period of 5 years vide order dated

31.05.2021. In terms with the statutory provision, the assessee again filed an application

seeking renewal of registration before ld. CIT(E). However, the application filed by the

assessee seeking renewal of registration was rejected, alleging non-compliance in

furnishing documents. A perusal of the impugned order of ld. CIT(E) reveals that he issued

a notice on 23.10.2025 to the assessee requiring furnishing of certain documents including

certificate of registration u/s. 12A of the Act granted originally. Alleging that the assessee

failed to furnish the requisite documents, he ultimately rejected the application for renewal.

sought for by ld. CIT(E) were uploaded by the assesse, however, without taking note of

such documents, he rejected the application. In this context, ld. Counsel drew our attention

to the original registration granted u/s. 12A of the Act on 27.09.2007.

impugned order of ld. CIT(E) is unsustainable, as he has mechanically rejected assessee’s

application for renewal of registration without applying mind to the materials placed on

record. The allegation of ld. CIT(E) that the assessee did not furnish the original

registration certificate granted u/s. 12A of the Act, appears to be unsubstantiated. Be that

as it may, since assessee’s application seeking renewal of registration was rejected simply

on account of non-compliance in furnishing certain documents called for, we are inclined

to set aside the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(E) and direct him to consider assessee’s

application for renewal of registration afresh in light of the documentary evidences filed or

to be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, before deciding the issue, the assessee

3 ITA No. 2563/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2026-27) Shree 1008 Shantinath Digamber Jain Trust vs. ITO (Exem) must be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. We further direct ld. CIT(E) to

dispose of assessee’s application expeditiously.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 27.07.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai