H vs. FOUNDATION,MUMBAIVS.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, CUMBALLA HILL MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2076/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2026AY 2026-20275 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted the proof of registration under Section 12AA. The CIT(E) rejected the application without considering these documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application because the assessee failed to provide proof of registration under the old regime (Section 12AA). The assessee contended that the required documents were submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the renewal application without considering the submitted proof of prior registration. Whether the principle of natural justice was violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12AA,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAVSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2076/Mum./2026 (Assessment Year : 2026-27) HVS Foundation 1101/1201, Sanghvi Villa, S.V. Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai - 400058 ……………. Appellant PAN : AABTH3438A v/s

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing – 12/05/2026 Date of Order – 22/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 18.02.2026, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, [“learned CIT(E)”], rejecting the application filed by the assessee seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Ld. CIT(E), has committed gross injustice to the appellant by and passed the order rejecting the application for registration filed by the assessee trust u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad both in the eye of law and on the and facts of the case.

2 ITA No.2076/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2026-27)

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (E) has erred on both on facts and in law in passing the order rejecting the application for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act without providing the opportunity of being heard in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Id. CIT(E) are in violation of the statutory conditions of the act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (E) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax act despite the fact that the assessee filed the application within the prescribed time limit and fulfilled all the conditions as provided under the Income Tax act and thus. eligible for registration. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax act, 1961 only because of error on his part in not locating original 12A registration certificate issued prior to 01.04.2021 with your appellant's letter dated 16.02.2026 submitted to the office of Ld. CIT(E) office on 19.02.2026 though the same was very much submitted with the said letter and was on file further, despite the fact that there is no adverse findings regarding the aims, objects and genuineness of the activities of the trust and hence application for registration cannot be rejected."

3.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was constituted by a trust deed dated 09.07.2014 and is registered with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. Pursuant to the introduction of a new regime for registration under section 12AB of the Act, the assessee obtained regular registration under section 12AB of the Act, vide Form No. 10AC on 28.05.2021, with a validity period of five years (i.e., from assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27). On 30.09.2025, the assessee filed an application in Form 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act.

4.

Upon perusal of the application filed by the assessee, the learned CIT(E) noticed that the assessee was claiming renewal of regular registration under

3 ITA No.2076/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2026-27)

section 12AB and, therefore, was required to substantiate that it was validly registered under section 12AA of the Act (i.e., in the old regime). Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish a copy of the registration under section 12AA of the Act held under the old regime. After perusal of the response dated 16.01.2026 filed by the assessee, the learned CIT(E) noted that the assessee had failed to furnish the proof of registration under section 12AA of the Act, i.e., under the old regime. Vide impugned order, the learned CIT(E) held that in the absence of registration under section 12AA of the Act (old regime), the validity of registration granted under section 12AB of the Act could not be established. Accordingly, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessee, vide its submission dated 16.01.2026 filed before the learned CIT(E), inter alia, provided a copy of the order of registration granted to the assessee under section 12AA of the Act. However, without considering the said order, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act.

6.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the order passed by the learned CIT(E).

7.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that merely due to the non-availability

4 ITA No.2076/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2026-27)

of a copy of the registration granted to the assessee under the old regime in section 12AA of the Act, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application filed by the assessee seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. From the perusal of the submission filed by the assessee dated 16.01.2026 in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT(E), forming part of the paper book from pages 16-18, we find that the assessee, in compliance with the directions, furnished a copy of the earlier registration held by the assessee- trust under section 12AA of the Act. The assessee has placed a copy of the said order dated 30.09.2015, passed under section 12AA of the Act, in the paper book at page 19. During the hearing, the learned AR also furnished the acknowledgement of the details filed before the learned CIT(E) on 30.09.2025 and submitted that the said order dated 30.09.2015, passed under section 12AA of the Act, was also uploaded online by the assessee on 30.09.2025. Therefore, considering the material placed on record, we find merit in the submissions of the learned AR that the necessary details, as sought by the learned CIT(E), were duly furnished by the assessee. As is evident from the perusal of the impugned order, the learned CIT(E), without considering such details, has rejected the application for renewal of registration filed by the assessee. Therefore, we restore the application filed by the assessee for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act to the file of the learned CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, as per law, after considering all the details/documents as filed by the assessee. We further direct that the learned CIT(E) shall be at liberty to seek any other information/details from the assessee, for which adequate opportunity shall be granted to the assessee. Thus, needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording

5 ITA No.2076/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2026-27)

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22/05/2026 Prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant 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 →