SATBHAV CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to furnish the amended documents. The CIT(E) was instructed to allow a fair opportunity to the assessee before passing a fresh order.
What were the facts?
The assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) was rejected by the CIT(E) primarily because one of its objects was to apply/receive funds outside India. The assessee has since amended its objects to remove this clause.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of registration under Section 12AB based on an object of applying funds outside India is valid, especially after the object has been amended.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders of
ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, [for short
“Ld.CIT(E)”] dated 27.09.2025, in rejecting the application for registration
of trust under Section 12AB and approval of fund under Section 80G(5).
The facts in both the appeals are common and the grounds raised in both
the appeals are inter-connected. Therefore, with the consent of parties,
both the appeals are clubbed, heard together and are decided by way of
common order. For appreciation of facts, facts in ITA No. 7279/Mum/2025
are treated as a lead case. The assessee has raised following grounds of
appeal “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [in short Ld. CIT(Exemption)] erred in rejecting application for seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act.
The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application merely on technical or procedural grounds without appreciating the genuineness of the appellant's activities and its charitable intent.
The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act without issuing Show Cause Notice as required by the law.
The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in passing an order rejecting application for seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act on a ground which is different from ground stated in alleged show cause notice dated 17th September 2025.”
Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and records are
perused. The Learned Authorised Representative (‘Ld. AR’) of the assessee
submits that, the application for registration of the assessee’s trust under
Section 12AB was rejected by Ld.CIT(E) by taking view that one of the
objects of the assessee is to apply/receive funds outside India. The
assessee has now amended their objects/Memorandum of Association
(‘MOA’) in deleting such objects for application/receiving funds outside
India. Otherwise, the assessee has not applied any funds outside India
since its inception. The other objects and activities of the assessee is not
disputed by Ld.CIT(E). There are decisions of various High Courts and
Tribunal holding that, application of the funds outside India is not a
relevant criterion for rejecting the application. Thus, the assessee is eligible
for registration.
In support of the grounds of appeal raised in other appeal which relates to
approval of funds under Section 80G(5), the Ld. AR submits that once the application for registration under Section 12AB for rejected, the other
application which is consequential was also rejected. Thus, both the appeal
of the assessee may be allowed. � Dedhia Music Foundation v. CIT (E). In ITA No. 743 & 744/Mum/2025 - 02.04.2025, � M.K. Nambyor Saarf Law Charitable Trust v. Union of India in WP (C) 7689/2004 - 28.05.2004 - Delhi High Court. � DIT v. Garden City Educational Trust in ITA No. 57 of 2004, [2011] 330 ITR 480 - 15.07.2009 - Karnataka High Court.
On the other hand, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (‘Ld.
Sr. DR’) for the revenue submits that objects and activities of the assessee
has not been examined by Ld.CIT(E). Now, as per the submissions of ld AR
of the assessee, the assessee has amended their objects/MOA. Therefore,
the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(E) for considering the
application for registration afresh with the direction to the assessee to
furnish complete details to substantiate objects and activities. In case,
objects and activities are found acceptable and the assessee is found
eligible, the other application for approval of the funds may be considered
by Ld.CIT(E).
We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and also gone
through the material placed before us. Before us, the Ld. AR of the
assessee vehemently argued that, after the order of rejection of the
assessee’s application for registration under Section 12AB, the assessee has
amended its objects/MOA and there is no such clause for application of income outside India. We find that, the Ld.CIT(E) rejected the application
of the assessee on taking view that, one of the object of the assessee is to
apply/receive funds outside India, without examining the object and
activities of the assessee. Now, the assessee has amended such objects.
Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of
the Ld.CIT(E) with the direction to reconsider the matter afresh and pass
the order in accordance with the law. Needless to direct that before passing
the order afresh, the Ld.CIT(E) shall allow a fair and reasonable
opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish the
amended Objects/Trust Deed/MOA. In the result, the appeal in ITA No.
7279/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA N. 7278/Mum/2025 [In the matter of approval under Section 80G(5)]. 6. Considering the fact that, we have already restored the application for
registration under Section 12AB. Therefore, this appeal is restored back to
the file of the Ld.CIT(E) after passing the order in the matter of application
for registration under Section 12AB. In the result, the grounds of appeal
raised in this appeal are also allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open Court on 09.07.2026 at the time of hearing
Sd Sd/- /- Sd/- Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 09/07/2026 Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT and (5) Guard file. By Order
Assistant 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 →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026