VIDHYARTHI VIKAS MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4752/MUM/2026Status: HeardITAT Mumbai21 July 2026AY 2026-20276 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection was based solely on non-compliance without verifying service of notice. Since the proceedings are quasi-judicial and principles of natural justice must be followed, the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G were rejected by the CIT(E) due to alleged non-compliance with a notice. The assessee contended that the notice was not served at its registered address and therefore it was unaware of the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval was justified when the assessee claims non-service of the notice, and whether principles of natural justice were violated.

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: 21/07/2026

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 4751 & 4752/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2026-2027) VIDHYARTHI VIKAS EXEMPTION WARD 2(4) MANDAL PRATISHTHA BHAWAN, SHRAMIK VIDYALAYA MAHARSHI KARVE RD, SCHOOL BLDG., I T DHOBI TALAO, NEW QUARTERS ROAD, Vs. MARINE LINES, MEGHWADI, JOGESHWARI, CHURCHGATE (EAST), MUMBAI-400060, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AAATV2188G Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: None ��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: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of 1 Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, both dated 25/02/2026, whereby the assessee's application seeking renewal of registration u/s 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.

2.

Since common 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.

3.

The assessee filed applications in Form No.10AB on 27/09/2025 seeking renewal of registration u/s 12AB of the Act as well as approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act.

3.1. During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) issued a notice dated 14/01/2026 bearing DIN ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025-26/1084769559(1) calling upon the assessee to furnish self-certified documents and certain information/explanations in support of the applications. According to the impugned orders, since there was no compliance with the aforesaid notice, the Ld. CIT(E), vide separate orders dated 25/02/2026, rejected both the applications.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

When the appeals were called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of these appeals ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the submissions of the Ld. Departmental Representative and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the grounds raised in the memoranda of appeal.

5.

The Ld. DR relied upon the findings recorded in the respective impugned orders and submitted that the assessee failed to furnish the requisite information despite issuance of notice by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, the rejection of the applications was justified.

The Ld. DR, however, fairly submitted that if this Tribunal is inclined to restore the matters, appropriate directions may be issued to the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E).

We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record.

6.

Though none appeared on behalf of the assessee, we have carefully considered the grounds raised in the memoranda of appeal.

7.

The specific grievance of the assessee is that the notice dated 14/01/2026 was issued to the personal e-mail address of one of the trustees instead of the official e-mail addresses of the assessee as available on the Income-tax portal. It has further been contended that the notice was neither received on the registered e- mail addresses nor through post/courier, and consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(E). It is the case of the assessee that the non-compliance was not deliberate but occurred solely on account of non-service of the notice.

7.1. From the impugned orders, we find that both the applications have been rejected solely on account of alleged non-compliance and non-furnishing of documents. No adverse finding has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) regarding the charitable objects of the assessee, the genuineness of its activities, or the fulfilment of the statutory conditions governing grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The orders also do not demonstrate that adequate opportunity was afforded to the assessee to explain its case or to remove the alleged deficiencies.

7.2. It is well settled that proceedings relating to grant of registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G are quasi-judicial in nature and must conform to the principles of natural justice. Where the assessee asserts that the notice was not served at its registered communication address and consequently could not participate in the proceedings, and such contention requires verification, the ends of justice would be served by restoring the matter for fresh consideration.

7.3. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the impugned orders and restore both the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) shall verify the assessee's contention regarding service of notice, issue fresh notice at the registered communication address available on the Income- tax portal, afford adequate and effective opportunity of hearing, permit the assessee to furnish all documents and explanations in support of its applications for renewal of registration u/s 12AB as well as approval u/s 80G(5), and thereafter pass separate reasoned and speaking orders in accordance with law.

The assessee shall extend full cooperation in the remand proceedings and shall promptly comply with all notices and requisitions issued by the Ld. CIT(E). We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of either application, and all issues are left open for adjudication by the Ld. CIT(E) 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 21/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

BEENA PILLAI GIRISH AGRAWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

Copy to: VIDHYARTHI VIKAS MANDAL, SHRAMIK VIDYALAYA SCHOOL BLDG., I T QUARTERS ROAD, MEGHWADI, 1 JOGESHWARI, (EAST), MUMBAI-400060, MAHARASHTRA EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), PRATISHTHA BHAWAN, MAHARSHI 2 KARVE RD, DHOBI TALAO, NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020, 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 →