THE BOMBAY ST MARYS SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not adequately consider the material on record or provide a meaningful opportunity for the assessee to furnish further information. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G were rejected by the CIT(Exemptions). The assessee contended that the CIT(E) issued only one questionnaire and did not consider information already provided.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) provided a proper opportunity of being heard and considered all available material before rejecting the applications for registration and approval.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate impugned orders dated 01.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, whereby the assessee’s applications seeking registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been rejected. Since common facts and identical issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
2 ITA No.5591 & 5596/Mum/2026 The Bombay ST Mary’s Society
Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected the applications after issuing only a single questionnaire-cum-notice. It was submitted that a substantial part of the information sought in the said questionnaire had already been furnished by the assessee along with the original applications and supporting documents. However, the learned CIT(E), without considering the material already available on record and without granting any further effective opportunity of hearing, proceeded to reject the applications. It was, therefore, prayed that the matters may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The learned Departmental Representative fairly left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It appears that the impugned orders have been passed after issuance of only one questionnaire-cum- notice. The contention of the assessee that a substantial part of the information sought had already been furnished along with the applications has not been examined in the impugned orders. In our considered opinion, before rejecting applications seeking registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G, the authority is required to consider the material already available on record and, if any further clarification or document is required, afford an effective and meaningful opportunity to the assessee to furnish the same. Since such an exercise has not been
3 ITA No.5591 & 5596/Mum/2026 The Bombay ST Mary’s Society undertaken, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to restore the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E).
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore both the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to adjudicate the applications afresh in accordance with law after considering the entire material already available on record as well as such further documents as may be furnished by the assessee. The learned CIT(E) shall afford due and effective opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh speaking order. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the proceedings and furnish all requisite documents and explanations as may be called for.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 10th July, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 10/07/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT
4 ITA No.5591 & 5596/Mum/2026 The Bombay ST Mary’s Society 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//
BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
More judgments on Section 12AB
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026