J.N.PETIT READING ROOM & LIBRARY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.3135/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2027-28) J. N. Petit Reading Room & CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai Room No.601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill Library 616, West View, Jame Jamshed Vs. MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400014 PAN: AAATJ7126J Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assesseeby : Ms. Kanyaz Dadinath Kamdin, CA : Shri Harendra Verma, Sr. DR Revenueby : 09.06.2026 Date of Hearing : 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This present appeal is filed by the assessee, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions),Mumbai [in short, “the Ld. CIT(E)”], dated 28.02.2026, for grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”]. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. General The Assessing Officer has erred not considering that Assessee Trust already had an 12A approval under the erstwhile provisions hence approval should not have been rejected.

ITA No. 3135/Mum/2026 J.N. Petit Reading Room & Library 2. Ground of objection - Based on law. 2.1 The rejection order was passed without providing an effective opportunity of being heard, as the appellant had no knowledge of the notice and therefore could not respond. 2.2 The rejection is based purely on a procedural lapse, whereas the appellant satisfies all conditions for renewal under section 12AB and can produce all required documents. 2.3 The CIT(E) did not examine or dispute the genuineness of activities, objects, or compliance with law; the sole reason for rejection was non-response to a notice that the appellant never received. Even when the appellant suo-moto realized the non- receipt of the notice and thereafter worked towards collation of the details to submit the data it was unfortunately too late and the order was passed stating non compliance and time barring matter. 3 Order contrary to legislative intent: Section 12AB aims to ensure continuity of registration for genuine trusts; denial on technical grounds over which the appellant had no control defeats the beneficial purpose of the provision. 4 Prayer for restoration: The appellant prays that the rejection order be set aside and the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB be restored to the file of the CIT(E), with directions to grant reasonable opportunity for submitting documents and to pass a fresh order on merits.” 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee, “J.N. Petit Reading Room & Library” is a charitable trust engaged in the educational activities had filed an application in Form 10AB on 29.09.2025 seeking renewal of registration u/s 12AB of the Act. 3. Ld. CIT(E), Mumbai issued a notice dated 05.01.2026 calling for additional documents under Rule 17A(2) of the Act. However, the registered email id of the assessee is that of a very senior and old trustee and somehow the mail had got missed. Since, 12AB notices were also sent out to other trusts, the assessee trust after checking the portal realized that the notice was issued to itself as well. Consequently, the trust became aware of the notice very late and therefore, could not respond within the stipulated time. Accordingly, due to non-

ITA No. 3135/Mum/2026 J.N. Petit Reading Room & Library receipt of the departmental communication, the assessee could not furnish the documents sought in time. There was no willful default or deliberate non- compliance, whereas the lapse was purely procedural and unintentional. 4. It was the submission that the assessee trust has always complied with the statutory provisions and continued to carry out genuine charitable activities. All the documents required to substantiate its activities, accounts and objects are fully available and shall be produced before the Ld. CIT(E). It was the prayer that the matters be restored back to the files of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, wherein the assessee submits to furnish all the necessary details and comply before him on pro-active basis. 5. Per contra, Ld. DR representing the Revenue though, supported the orders of Ld. CIT(E), but had not objected to the request of assessee of setting aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E). 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Apparently, in the present case, the trust is in existence since 1953 and having registration u/s 12A from 5th August, 1976 and the submissions of Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee suggests that there was no deliberate non- compliance or willful default on the part of assessee. The assessee is undertaking to furnish necessary information and explanations before the Ld. CIT(E) in the set aside proceedings. 7. We thus, in the interest of justice find it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable 3

ITA No. 3135/Mum/2026 J.N. Petit Reading Room & Library opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT(E) without any further default or failure, in case there is any further default on the part of assessee, Ld. CIT(E) would be at liberty to decide the application of assessee in Form 10AB in accordance with the mandate of law. 8. In result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes,in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-06-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (PAWAN SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 15-06-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS

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

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai