MAHARASHTRA LOHITA SEVA MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3634/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 June 20267 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the assessee's submitted reply and all other materials, and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected both applications, citing incomplete documentation for the 12AB renewal and a consequential rejection for the 80G approval. The assessee claimed they had submitted a detailed reply which was not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) properly considered the assessee's reply before rejecting the applications for renewal of registration and approval. Whether the rejection of the 80G approval was solely dependent on the 12AB registration rejection.

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, “B” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRISAKTIJIT DEY& SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, Ld. DR
Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 3634/Mum/2026
ITA No. 3635/Mum/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRISAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT& SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 3634/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: N.A.) 2. ITA No. 3635/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Maharashtra Lohita Cit Exemption Seva Mandal Room No. 601, 6th Vs. 1/1, Himalaya Apt., Floor, Cumballa Hill, Santacruz East, 6th Mtnl Te Building, Road Opp R K Peddar Road, Dr Hospital, Mumbai, Gopalrao Deshmukh Mumbai-400019, Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra Mumbai-400026, PAN/GIR No. AAATM5251F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Yogesh Kamat, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee arise out of two separate orders, both dated 28.02.2026, passed by the learned

2 ITA No. 3634 & 3635/Mum/2026 Maharashtra Lohita Seva Mandal

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai ["CIT(E)"] in Form No.10AD, one under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") rejecting the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB, and the other under section 80G(5) rejecting the application for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are interconnected, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

We first take up ITA No.3635/Mum/2026, relating to rejection of the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

THE ORDER BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai ['Ld. CIT(E)'], rejecting the application for renewal of registration, is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as - (i) the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 ['the Act']; and (ii) the same is arbitrary and perverse. 2. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 2.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the impugned order is bad in law and illegal, as the same is framed in gross breach of the principles of Natural Justice.

3 ITA No. 3634 & 3635/Mum/2026 Maharashtra Lohita Seva Mandal

2.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above ground, the impugned order is bad in law and illegal as no sufficient and fair opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant. 2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order is bad in law and illegal on this ground as well. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE (ON MERITS) 3. REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION 3.1 The CIT(E) erred in passing order in Form 10AD, rejecting the application of the Appellant seeking renewal of registration, on the ground that application was not complete and alleged 'non-compliance to all the terms of notices' issued to the Appellant. 3.2 While doing so, the CIT(E) erred in: (i) Basing his action on surmises, suspicion and conjecture; (ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations; (iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant. 3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such rejection was called for. 4. LIBERTY The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above grounds at the time of hearing. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB on 30.09.2025 under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB. Upon verification of the application, the learned CIT(E) noticed that the application was incomplete and that all the documents required under Rule 17A(2) had not been furnished. Consequently, a

4 ITA No. 3634 & 3635/Mum/2026 Maharashtra Lohita Seva Mandal

notice dated 05.01.2026 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents and other details. According to the learned CIT(E), the assessee did not comply with all the terms of the said notice. The learned CIT(E) observed that registration under section 12AB could be granted only upon being satisfied regarding the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and compliance with other applicable laws. In the absence of the necessary compliance, he held that he was unable to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the statutory requirements and, therefore, rejected the application for renewal of registration vide order dated 28.02.2026. 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee had physically filed a detailed reply on 12.01.2026 before the office of the learned CIT(E), which was duly acknowledged by the office. It was submitted that the impugned order had been passed without considering the said reply and the documents filed therewith. It was, therefore, contended that the matter deserved to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering the material already available on record. 6. The learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that he had no objection if the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after considering the reply stated to have been filed by the assessee.

5 ITA No. 3634 & 3635/Mum/2026 Maharashtra Lohita Seva Mandal

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The impugned order proceeds on the footing that the assessee had not complied with all the requirements of the notice dated 05.01.2026 and, therefore, the learned CIT(E) could not record the satisfaction contemplated under section 12AB of the Act. However, the specific plea of the assessee before us is that a detailed reply along with supporting documents had already been filed physically before the office of the learned CIT(E) on 12.01.2026 and the same was duly acknowledged. The Revenue has not disputed this factual assertion, and the learned Departmental Representative has also not objected to restoration of the matter. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fair stand taken by the Revenue, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to consider the reply stated to have been filed by the assessee on 12.01.2026, together with all the material available on record, and thereafter decide the application afresh in accordance with law after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application and all issues are kept open for fresh adjudication.

6 ITA No. 3634 & 3635/Mum/2026 Maharashtra Lohita Seva Mandal

9.

We shall now take up ITA No.3634/Mum/2026 relating to rejection of the application for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. The learned CIT(E), vide order dated 28.02.2026 passed under section 80G(5) in Form No.10AD, rejected the assessee's application on the sole ground that its application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had already been rejected and, therefore, the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5)(i) were not fulfilled. 10. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the rejection under section 80G is purely consequential to the rejection of registration under section 12AB and, therefore, if the order under section 12AB is restored, the order under section 80G should also be restored. The learned Departmental Representative did not dispute this position. 11. We find merit in the above submission. A perusal of the impugned order passed under section 80G shows that the rejection is entirely founded upon the rejection of the assessee's application under section 12AB and does not rest on any independent examination of the conditions prescribed under section 80G. Since we have restored the proceedings relating to section 12AB to the file of the learned CIT(E), the consequential order passed under section 80G also cannot survive independently. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 28.02.2026 passed under section 80G(5) and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in

7 ITA No. 3634 & 3635/Mum/2026 Maharashtra Lohita Seva Mandal

accordance with law after deciding the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB.

12.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 29/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / 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 →