ABDUL GAFOOR EDUCATION & SOCIAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4881/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance rather than an examination of the trust's charitable objects or genuineness of activities. It was decided that a further opportunity should be granted to the assessee to rectify the deficiencies.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected both applications due to the assessee's failure to furnish required details and documents, despite opportunities given.

What were the issues?

Whether rejection of applications for registration and approval solely on procedural grounds, without examining the substantive merits, is justified. Whether the assessee was afforded an effective opportunity to cure defects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain CIT-DR
Pronounced: 27/07/2026

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 4881 & 4882/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: NA) ABDUL GAFOOR EDUCATION THE COMMISSIONER OF & SOCIAL WELFARE INCOME TAX FOUNDATION (EXEMPTIONS),MUMBAI 4A-202, KAPADIA NAGAR, CST ROOM NO.601,6TH FLOOR, ROAD, KURLA (WEST) MUMBAI- CUMBALLA HILL, MTNL TE Vs. 400070, MUMBAI-400070, BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI-400026 MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AALCA2956M Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Kunal Dilip, AR ��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: 27/07/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai ["Ld. CIT(E)"], whereby the application for renewal of registration u/s 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the application seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act were rejected. Since common facts and identical issues are involved in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.

Brief facts leading to the present appeals are that the assessee is a trust/foundation established with charitable objects and is engaged in carrying out charitable activities in accordance with its objects. The assessee had filed an application in Form No.10AB seeking renewal of registration u/s 12AB of the Act and also filed an application seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act before the Ld. CIT(E).

3.

During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notices calling upon the assessee to furnish various details and supporting documents for examining the applications. According to the Ld. CIT(E), despite the opportunities granted, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite information and documents called for. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(E), treating the assessee as non- compliant, rejected the application for renewal of registration u/s 12AB as well as the application seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act.

Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications merely on account of alleged non-compliance without examining the charitable objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities. It was submitted that no adverse finding has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) regarding either the objects of the trust/foundation or the genuineness of its activities. The Ld. AR contended that the rejection is based solely on procedural lapses and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.

4.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders. It was argued that the alleged deficiencies pointed out by the Ld. CIT(E), including non-furnishing of certain documents, were merely procedural and curable in nature. The Ld. AR submitted that instead of rejecting the applications outright, the Ld. CIT(E) ought to have granted one more effective opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite details and substantiate its claim. It was 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.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned orders and submitted that sufficient opportunities had been granted by the Ld. CIT(E) during the course of proceedings. It was contended that despite issuance of notices, the assessee failed to furnish the information and documents called for, leaving no option with the Ld. CIT(E) but to reject the applications. The Ld. DR, however, fairly submitted that if the Bench is inclined to restore the matters, appropriate directions may be issued requiring the assessee to extend full cooperation before the Ld. CIT(E).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The controversy in the present 3 appeals lies in the rejection of the assessee's applications seeking renewal of registration u/s 12AB as well as approval u/s 80G of the Act on the ground of non-compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E).

7.

It is observed that the impugned orders have been passed primarily on account of the assessee's failure to furnish the requisite details and documents called for by the Ld. CIT(E). However, we find that the Ld. CIT(E) has not recorded any adverse finding with regard to the charitable nature of the objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities. The rejection of the applications is thus based substantially on procedural non- compliance rather than on an examination of the statutory requirements governing grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act.

8.

It is well settled that the authority entrusted with examining applications under the aforesaid provisions is required to satisfy itself regarding the conditions prescribed under the Act. Mere procedural lapses or non-furnishing of certain documents, where such deficiencies are capable of being rectified, should ordinarily not result in outright rejection of the applications without affording an effective and reasonable opportunity to the applicant to cure such defects.

8.1. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee to furnish all the requisite documents and explanations before the Ld. CIT(E). Simultaneously, the assessee is 4 also expected to extend full cooperation and diligently comply with all notices and requisitions that may be issued during the fresh proceedings.

8.2. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application for renewal of registration u/s 12AB as well as the application seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act and restore both the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(E) shall afford the assessee adequate and effective opportunity of being heard, examine all the documents and evidences that may be furnished, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all requisite details and documents as may be called for by the Ld. CIT(E). In the event of any failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notices issued, the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI GIRISH AGRAWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai Dated: 27/07/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: ABDUL GAFOOR EDUCATION & SOCIAL WELFARE FOUNDATION, 4A-202, KAPADIA NAGAR, CST ROAD, 1 KURLA (WEST) MUMBAI-400070, MUMBAI-400070, MAHARASHTRA THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),MUMBAI, ROOM NO.601,6TH FLOOR, 2 CUMBALLA HILL, MTNL TE BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD, MUMBAI-400026, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →