BHARAT UTTHAN SANGH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4601/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 June 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on non-compliance without examining the merits of the claim. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT (Exemptions) for a fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust's application for registration under section 12AB was rejected by the CIT (Exemptions) due to non-compliance with a notice for furnishing documents. The assessee claimed the non-compliance was due to bona fide circumstances and requested an opportunity to present its case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the registration application solely on grounds of non-compliance without considering the assessee's claim on merits.

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 AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Mrinmayi Mule, Adv
For Respondent: Smt. Amrita Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 29/06/2026Pronounced: 29/06/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the above- named assessee trust against the order dated 04.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT (Exemption), whereby the application filed by the assessee seeking registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act has been rejected.

2 ITA No.4601/Mum/2026 Bharat Utthan Sangh 2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material placed before us. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned CIT (Exemption) rejected the assessee’s application primarily on the ground that despite issuance of notice dated 23.01.2026, requiring the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents and other relevant particulars in support of its claim, no compliance was made. In the absence of the requisite material, the learned CIT (Exemption) proceeded to reject the application.

3.

Before us, the learned counsel submitted that the non- compliance with the aforesaid notice was neither deliberate nor intentional but had occurred due to bona fide circumstances. It was further submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to furnish all the documents, evidences and explanations as may be required for proper adjudication of its application and, therefore, requested that one effective opportunity be granted to enable the assessee to substantiate its claim on merits.

4.

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts emerging from the record, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee’s claim ought to be examined on the touchstone of the material relevant for deciding its entitlement under the statutory provisions. Since the impugned order has been rendered principally on account of

3 ITA No.4601/Mum/2026 Bharat Utthan Sangh non-compliance with the notice issued during the course of the proceedings, without the claim being examined on the basis of the requisite material, the interest of justice would be adequately served by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT (Exemption) with a direction to examine the assessee’s application afresh in accordance with law after affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee shall furnish all the documents, evidences and other particulars as may be called for by the learned CIT (Exemption), who shall consider the same objectively and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order 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/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 29/06/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

4 ITA No.4601/Mum/2026 Bharat Utthan Sangh

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 →