RAMESH MERCHANT FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CITEXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4650/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The CIT(E) is to re-adjudicate the applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G.

What were the facts?

The assessee's applications for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G were rejected by the CIT(E) due to non-compliance. The assessee claimed they only received one notice and failed to comply due to an inadvertent oversight in monitoring their email and the income-tax portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(E) for registration and approval applications.

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, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 21/08/2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 4650/MUM/2026
ITA 4651/MUM/2026

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

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“Ld. CIT(E)”], dated 25.02.2026 in rejecting registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications filed by the assessee for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act for non-compliance by the assessee. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) provided the assessee only one opportunity by issuing a solitary notice on 24.01.2026. Ld. Counsel submitted that the said notice could not be complied with due to inadvertent failure in monitoring the registered email ID and income-tax portal. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that issue may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish the necessary details.

3.

Ld. DR has no serious objection in restoring these appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for adjudicating afresh.

4.

Considering the rival submissions, perusing the orders of the Ld. CIT(E), and taking note of the contentions of the assessee, we are of the view that, in the interest of justice, these two appeals have to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for adjudicating afresh the applications filed by the assessee for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act.

Accordingly, we restore these appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), who shall dispose of and adjudicate the applications filed by the assessee for registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2026

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 21/08/2026 Prabhat Copy to: RAMESH MERCHANT FOUNDATION, C-602, MANSI VIHAR, DTT MANDIR ROAD, NEXT TO ORDINACE DEPOT, MALAD 1 EAST, MUMBAI-400097, MAHARASHTRA CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, 6TH FLOOR, MTNL TEL. EX. BUILDING, 2 CUMBALLA HILLS, PEDDER ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 026., MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →