SHRI KARAMCHAND MAYACHAND PARIKH TRUST,CHOWPATY vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CUMBALLA HILL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4544/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 June 2026AY 2025-264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the matter required fresh verification by the CIT(Exemption) in light of the documents submitted by the assessee. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12AB, which was rejected by the CIT(Exemption) for allegedly failing to provide satisfactory details of its charitable activities. The assessee contended that all necessary documents were submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB without properly verifying the documents submitted by the assessee regarding its charitable activities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWALShri Karamchand

Hearing: 29/06/2026Pronounced: 29/06/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL(A.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the above- named assessee trust against the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT (Exemption), whereby the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB seeking

2 ITA No.4544/Mum/2026 Shri Karamchand Mayachand Parikh Trust regular registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act has been rejected.

2.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned CIT (Exemption) had issued a notice calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite documents and details in support of its application. The impugned order itself records that the assessee had furnished a reply on 11.03.2026. However, according to the learned CIT (Exemption), the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory details and supporting evidence regarding the charitable activities undertaken by it, and on that premise the application came to be rejected.

3.

Before us, the learned counsel submitted that all the requisite details, including documentary evidence relating to the activities carried on by the trust, had in fact been furnished before the learned CIT (Exemption). Our attention was drawn to the relevant documents placed in the paper book, particularly the compilation at pages 1 to 18, to demonstrate that the trust has been in existence since 1978 and has been carrying on charitable activities over the years. It was, therefore, submitted that the rejection of the application on the ground of non-furnishing of details is not borne out from the material placed on record.

3 ITA No.4544/Mum/2026 Shri Karamchand Mayachand Parikh Trust 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh verification by the learned CIT (Exemption) in the light of the documents stated to have been furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) with a direction to verify the documents and evidences placed on record, examine the claim of the assessee in accordance with law, and thereafter pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In case the documents and evidences are found to satisfy the statutory requirements, the learned CIT (Exemption) shall grant registration under section 12AB in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 29th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (GIRISH AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 29/06/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

4 ITA No.4544/Mum/2026 Shri Karamchand Mayachand Parikh Trust 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 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →