ANJUMAN MUSALMANAN MAZGAON,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(E)"] under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is contrary to the law and the facts of the case, and is based on a misinterpretation of the evidence on record. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and on facts by passing an ex-parte order of rejection without providing the Appellant a reasonable and effective opportunity to be heard. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had already filed an adjournment request on 22- 01-2026, which was neither formally rejected nor was any fresh date of hearing communicated to the Appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in passing the rejection order at a late hour (approx. 10:04 PM) on 02-03-2026, without waiting for the Appellant's response, which was ready for submission. Such haste in passing the order is arbitrary, lacks judicial discipline, and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the delay in submission was due to bonafide reasons and "sufficient cause," namely the extensive nature of the documentation required and the administrative hardships faced during the holy month of Ramadan. The Ld. CIT(E) ought to have exercised his power to grant a reasonable extension in the interest of justice by way of providing a last opportunity to the Appellant. 5. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for renewal of registration on purely technical grounds of non-submission of documents within a short window, rather than examining the charitable objects and the genuineness of the activities of the Trust, which is the primary requirement under Section 12AB. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the appellant case, Id. CIT(Exemption), ought not to have rejected the application for registration by ignoring the evidence on record with the application for registration. 7. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(E) be set aside and the matter be remanded back for a fresh de-novo consideration on

The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application by passing an ex parte order without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that the assessee had sought an adjournment on 22.01.2026, which was neither rejected nor was any further date of hearing communicated. It was further submitted that the delay in furnishing the requisite details was on account of bona fide reasons, including the voluminous nature of the information called for and administrative difficulties during the holy month of Ramadan. The learned AR further contended that the learned CIT(E) rejected the application merely on technical grounds without examining either the charitable objects or the genuineness of the activities of the trust, which are the relevant considerations under section 12AB. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E). However, he fairly submitted that he had no objection if the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed position that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the assessee's application for renewal of registration primarily on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the requisite details called for by the learned CIT(E). The order does not reveal any examination of the charitable objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities on the basis of the material already available on record. The assessee has consistently pleaded that an adjournment application had been filed and that the delay in furnishing the remaining details was occasioned by bona fide circumstances. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E). The proceedings relating to grant or renewal of registration under section 12AB are quasi-judicial in nature and require due examination of the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and compliance with the statutory requirements after providing an effective opportunity of being heard. Since both the parties fairly agreed that the matter may be restored for fresh consideration, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(E).

The learned CIT(E) shall afford the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation by furnishing all documents, information and explanations that may be called for during the fresh proceedings. The learned CIT(E) shall thereafter decide the application afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the impugned order or in this order.

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