SHRI JAIN SHASAN PRATISHTHANAM,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6224/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to re-examine the applications after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act were rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The assessee contended that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the submitted documents and that an effective opportunity of hearing was not provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the assessee's applications and provided an adequate opportunity of hearing before rejecting them.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 23.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, whereby the assessee’s applications

2 ITA No. 6223 & 6224 Mum/2026 Shri Jain Shasan Pratishthanam

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.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected the applications without properly considering the material already available on record, including the trust deed, audited accounts and other supporting documents. It was further submitted that the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders. 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 matter to the discretion of the Bench.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of substantial justice would be met by restoring both the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) shall examine the assessee’s applications afresh after

3 ITA No. 6223 & 6224 Mum/2026 Shri Jain Shasan Pratishthanam

considering all the documents and material that may be placed on record and after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall also extend full cooperation in the proceedings and furnish all such documents and information as may be required by the learned CIT(E).

4.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and restore both the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

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. 6223 & 6224 Mum/2026 Shri Jain Shasan Pratishthanam

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 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →