BAI MOTLIBAI WADIA UDWADA ATASHBEHRAM TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7713/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was based on a premise that adequate details were not furnished, while the assessee claimed they were. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under section 12AB was rejected by the CIT(E) for not furnishing sufficient details of its charitable activities. The assessee contended that it had provided all necessary documents, which were not properly considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the documents submitted by the assessee for registration under Section 12AB, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri M.D. Pandya
For Respondent: Shri Azhar Kabir, SR DR
Hearing: 10/07/2026Pronounced: 10/07/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, whereby the assessee’s application seeking registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been rejected.

2 ITA No.7713/Mum/2026 Bai Motlibai Wadia Udwada Atashbehram Trust

2.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that the assessee had not furnished sufficient details evidencing the charitable activities undertaken by it. It was, however, submitted that the assessee is an old trust, established since 1975, and has been carrying on charitable activities over the years. It was further contended that the assessee had already furnished the relevant documents and details in support of its activities, but the same have not been properly considered while passing the impugned order. It was, therefore, prayed that the matter 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. We find that the impugned order proceeds on the premise that the assessee had failed to furnish adequate details regarding its activities. However, the contention of the assessee before us is that the requisite documents and explanations had already been furnished and the same have not been duly considered. In these circumstances, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) so that all the material placed on record by the assessee is duly examined before arriving at any conclusion regarding the assessee’s entitlement to registration under section 12AB.

3 ITA No.7713/Mum/2026 Bai Motlibai Wadia Udwada Atashbehram Trust 4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine all the documents and submissions already filed by the assessee as well as any further material that may be furnished during the course of the proceedings, and thereafter decide the assessee’s application afresh in accordance with law after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee shall also extend full cooperation in the proceedings and furnish such further information and documents as may be required by the learned CIT(E). We also expect that the learned CIT(E) shall, as far as practicable, dispose of the assessee’s application preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 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.7713/Mum/2026 Bai Motlibai Wadia Udwada Atashbehram 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 →