DIVINE CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5605/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2026AY 2026-20274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without issuing a specific show-cause notice and affording a proper opportunity for explanation. Therefore, the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust filed applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected these applications without providing an effective opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval was valid without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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, ‘D’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Respondent: Shri Azhar Kabir, SR DR
Hearing: 10/07/2026Pronounced: 10/07/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate impugned orders dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptiona), 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.

2 ITA No.5605 & 5600/Mum/2026 Divine Charitable Trust Since common facts and identical issues are involved, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2.

The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected the applications without affording an effective opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that only one notice seeking certain details was issued during the course of the proceedings and no specific show-cause notice proposing rejection of the applications was ever issued. The assessee could not respond to the said notice for the reasons explained before us and, consequently, the applications came to be rejected. It was, therefore, prayed that the matters may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting one effective opportunity of hearing. The learned Departmental Representative fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

3.

We have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. From the facts brought before us, it appears that the impugned orders have been passed after issuance of only one notice seeking information and without issuing any specific show-cause notice before rejecting the applications. In our considered opinion, before rejecting an application seeking registration under section 12AB or approval under section 80G, the applicant should be

3 ITA No.5605 & 5600/Mum/2026 Divine Charitable Trust afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing so as to enable it to furnish the requisite documents and explanations. Since such opportunity has not been effectively afforded in the present case, the ends of justice would be met by restoring the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

4.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore both the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to decide the applications afresh in accordance with law after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the proceedings and furnish all the requisite documents and information as may be called for by the learned CIT(E).

5.

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

4 ITA No.5605 & 5600/Mum/2026 Divine Charitable Trust Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →