VEDANTA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5666/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2026AY 2027-284 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that only one opportunity was granted and material submitted by the assessee was not considered. Principles of natural justice require a proper examination of available material and an effective opportunity for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G were rejected by the CIT(E). The assessee argued that only one opportunity was given and partial compliance was made, but the CIT(E) rejected the applications without considering the submitted documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the assessee's submissions and afforded adequate opportunities before rejecting the applications for registration and approval.

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 Appellant: Shri Bhjupendra Shah
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 26.02.2026 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

2 ITA No.5663 & 5666/Mum/2026 Vedanta Trust the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) afforded only one opportunity during the course of the proceedings. It was further submitted that the assessee had already furnished partial compliance along with certain documents in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT(E). However, without considering the material already placed on record and without granting any further effective opportunity to remove the deficiencies, the learned CIT(E) proceeded to reject both the applications. It was, therefore, prayed that the matters be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The learned Departmental Representative fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that only one effective opportunity was granted to the assessee and that partial compliance had already been made. The impugned orders do not indicate any consideration of the material already furnished by the assessee before proceeding to reject the applications. In our considered opinion, where some compliance has already been made, the authority ought to examine the material available on record and, if any further

3 ITA No.5663 & 5666/Mum/2026 Vedanta Trust clarification or document is required, afford a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessee before taking an adverse view. The principles of natural justice warrant such a course.

4.

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, 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 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 fresh speaking orders. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the proceedings and furnish all requisite documents and explanations as may be called for.

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.5663 & 5666/Mum/2026 Vedanta Trust

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →