SRIJON FOUNDATION,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the rejection solely on a technical ground without granting an effective opportunity or verifying departmental records was not appropriate. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registered trust, applied for approval under Section 80G(5). The CIT(E) rejected the application for failing to furnish the old regime approval certificate, despite the assessee holding a valid 12A/12AB registration.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of an 80G(5) application solely for non-submission of an old approval certificate, without effective opportunity or verification, is justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai ["Ld. CIT(E)"] rejecting the assessee's application seeking approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, being a trust duly registered u/s 12A/12AB of the Act, filed an application seeking approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) called upon the assessee to furnish certain details, including the old regime approval certificate granted u/s 80G of the Act. According to the Ld. CIT(E), since the assessee failed to furnish the said certificate, the application was rejected by the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld. AR submitted that the rejection of the application is based solely on the alleged non-submission of the old regime approval certificate. It was submitted that the assessee continues to hold a valid registration u/s 12A/12AB of the Act and the genuineness of its charitable objects and activities has never been doubted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the earlier approval was available in the records of the Department and could have been verified by the Ld. CIT(E). It was, therefore, contended that the impugned order has been passed by adopting a hyper-technical approach without granting an effective opportunity of hearing. The Ld. AR prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
3.1. The Ld. DR relied upon the findings of the Ld. CIT(E).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee admittedly holds a valid registration u/s 12A/12AB of the Act. The application seeking approval u/s 80G(5) has been rejected primarily on the 2 ground that the assessee failed to furnish the old regime approval certificate. In our considered view, when the registration granted u/s 12A/12AB continues to remain valid and there is no adverse finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) regarding the charitable objects or the genuineness of the activities of the assessee, the application ought not to have been rejected solely on a technical ground without granting an effective opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite documents or without verifying the records available with the Department.
4.1. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) shall examine the assessee's application afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing and after considering all the documents and evidences that may be furnished by the assessee, including verification of the departmental records, wherever necessary. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim, and all issues are left open for adjudication by the Ld. CIT(E).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/07/206.
Sd/- Sd/-
BEENA PILLAI GIRISH AGRAWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 27/07/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: SRIJON FOUNDATION, B 401-402, HIBISCUS, PANCH MARG OFF YARI ROAD ANDHERI WEST 1 MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA -400061, MUMBAI-400061, MAHARASHTRA CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, 601,6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA HILL MTNL TE BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD, 2 CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA -400026, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 80G(5)
- Nikunj Mahendrabhai Adani, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2026/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1491/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1484/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026