DIVYA BHARAUT SANSTHAN,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई पीठ�, मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: C BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 4825 & 4824/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: NA) DIVYA BHARAUT SANSTHAN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 34, GROUND FLOOR, KUBER (EXEMPTIONS), COMPLEX, NEW LINK ROAD, MUMBAI OPP, LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDHERI (WEST) ROOM NO.601,6TH FLOOR, MUMBAI -400053, MUMBAI- CUMBALLA HILL, MTNL TE Vs. 400053, MAHARASHTRA BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD, MUMBAI-400026 MUMBAI-400053, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AABTD3651K Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented Shri Kunal Dilip Lunawat, AR by: (virtually appeared) ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 10-Jul-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 21/07/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 02/03/2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai ["Ld. CIT(E)"], whereby the application filed by the assessee seeking renewal of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) read with section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the application seeking approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act came to be rejected.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected both the applications merely on account of alleged procedural deficiencies, namely incomplete filing of Form No.10AB and non- furnishing of certain documents, without examining the charitable objects of the trust or the genuineness of its activities, which are the relevant considerations while dealing with applications for renewal of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act.

4.2. It was further submitted that the deficiencies pointed out by the Ld. CIT(E), if any, were curable in nature and the assessee ought to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to rectify the same. It was also contended that the impugned orders are non- speaking and do not record any adverse finding regarding either the charitable objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the matters be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

4.3. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned orders. It was submitted that sufficient opportunities had been granted during the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E), but the assessee failed to furnish the requisite information and documents. Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications.

4.4. The Ld. DR, however, fairly submitted that in the event this Tribunal considers it appropriate to restore the matters, suitable directions may be issued to the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E).

5.1. The grievance of the assessee in both the appeals is against the action of the Ld. CIT(E) in rejecting the applications seeking renewal of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act without affording an adequate and meaningful opportunity of being heard. It has further been contended that both the applications have been rejected merely on account of alleged procedural deficiencies, namely incomplete filing of the prescribed forms and non-furnishing of certain documents, without examining the charitable objects of the trust or the genuineness of its activities.

5.2. On perusal of the impugned orders, we find that both the applications have been rejected primarily on account of alleged non-compliance and non-furnishing of certain details. However, no finding has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) doubting either the charitable objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities. The impugned orders also do not indicate that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity to cure the alleged defects before the applications came to be rejected.

5.3. In our considered opinion, proceedings relating to grant or renewal of registration u/s 12AB as well as grant of approval u/s 80G(5) are quasi-judicial in nature and are required to be conducted in adherence to the principles of natural justice. Where the deficiencies pointed out are procedural or curable in nature, the applicant ought to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to rectify the same before an adverse order is passed. Rejection of the applications merely on technical or procedural grounds, without examining the statutory requirements relating to the charitable objects of the institution and the genuineness of its activities, cannot be sustained.

5.4. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned orders and restore both the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

5.5. The Ld. CIT(E) shall afford the assessee an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing, permit the assessee to furnish all relevant documents and explanations in support of its applications seeking renewal of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) read with section 12AB and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act, examine the charitable objects and the genuineness of the activities of the assessee in accordance with law, and thereafter pass separate reasoned and speaking orders in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation in the fresh proceedings and shall furnish all information and documents as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(E), without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

5.6. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim in either of the appeals and all issues are left open for adjudication by the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI GIRISH AGRAWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai Dated: 21/07/2026 SC. Sr. P.S.

Copy to: DIVYA BHARAUT SANSTHAN, 34, GROUND FLOOR, KUBER COMPLEX, NEW LINK ROAD, OPP, LAXMI INDUSTRIAL 1 ESTATE, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI -400053, MUMBAI-400053, MAHARASHTRA THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, ROOM NO.601,6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA HILL, 2 MTNL TE BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD, MUMBAI-400026, MUMBAI-400053, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE