THE RADIOLOGY EDUCATION FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA No. 3700/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) 2. ITA No. 3701/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) The Radiology CIT (Exemption) Education Room No. 601, 6th Foundation Floor, MTNL TE Vs. Building, Pedder Road, F, 1st Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- Bhaveshwar Vihar, 400 026 383, S.V.P. Road, Prathana Samaj, Mumbai-400 004 PAN/GIR No. AAATT3417E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jayendra G. Malavia, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Yogesh Kamat, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee arise from two separate orders, both dated 31.01.2026, passed by the learned

2 ITA No. 3700 7 3701/Mum/2026 The Radiology Education Foundation Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“the CIT(E)”]. Since the appeals concern the same assessee, arise out of connected proceedings and involve common facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.ITA No. 3701/Mum/2026 is directed against the order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E) in Form No. 10AD, whereby the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], was rejected in terms of section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.ITA No. 3700/Mum/2026 is directed against the separate order dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E) in Form No. 10AD, whereby the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act was rejected. Brief facts 2. The assessee is a public charitable trust constituted under a Trust Deed dated 05.02.1997. It is stated to be engaged in imparting knowledge to medical professionals, technicians, doctors and other persons connected with the field of radiology by conducting seminars and conferences and by distributing medical literature and digital papers. The assessee had earlier been granted registration under section 12A of the Act and approval under section 80G of the Act. 3. The assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 27.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act seeking renewal of its registration under section 12AB. The learned CIT(E), upon

3 ITA No. 3700 7 3701/Mum/2026 The Radiology Education Foundation verification of the application, issued a notice dated 12.01.2026 calling upon the assessee to furnish the documents prescribed under rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and to clarify whether its Trust Deed contained clauses relating to irrevocability and dissolution. The assessee furnished its reply and relevant documents on 23.01.2026 and stated that its Trust Deed did not contain express clauses relating to irrevocability and dissolution. 4. The learned CIT(E) observed that, in the absence of express clauses relating to irrevocability and dissolution, there was no safeguard to ensure that the trust property would continue to be applied solely for charitable purposes and that, upon dissolution, its assets would be transferred to another institution having similar charitable objects. The learned CIT(E) further observed that, in Row No. 6 of Form No. 10AB, the assessee had answered “Yes” to the question whether the Trust Deed contained a clause declaring the trust to be irrevocable. According to the learned CIT(E), the said answer amounted to furnishing false or incorrect information and constituted a “specified violation” within the meaning of Explanation (g) to section 12AB(4) of the Act. The application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB was, accordingly, rejected by the order dated 31.01.2026. 5. The assessee had also filed a separate application in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. The learned CIT(E) observed that the condition prescribed under section 80G(5)(i) requires the institution or fund to be one to which sections 11 and 12, clause (23AA) or clause (23C) of

4 ITA No. 3700 7 3701/Mum/2026 The Radiology Education Foundation section 10 apply. Since the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected, the learned CIT(E) held that the application seeking approval under section 80G had become untenable. The application under section 80G was, therefore, rejected consequentially by the separate order dated 31.01.2026. 6. In ITA No. 3701/Mum/2026, the assessee has, in substance, challenged the rejection of its application seeking registration under section 12AB on the grounds that the Trust Deed did not contain express irrevocability and dissolution clauses and that the answer furnished in Form No. 10AB constituted a specified violation under Explanation (g) to section 12AB(4). The assessee has also alleged violation of the principles of natural justice on account of absence of an adequate and specific opportunity before rejection of the application. 7. In ITA No. 3700/Mum/2026, the assessee has, in substance, challenged the consequential rejection of its application seeking approval under section 80G, arising from the rejection of its application for registration under section 12AB. The assessee has also raised a grievance regarding the alleged absence of an adequate opportunity of hearing. 8. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee had been carrying on charitable activities for approximately 28 years and had earlier been granted registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G. It was submitted that, after being informed that the Trust Deed should

5 ITA No. 3700 7 3701/Mum/2026 The Radiology Education Foundation contain clauses relating to irrevocability and dissolution, the assessee initiated steps to amend the Trust Deed and filed the relevant application on 10.04.2026. 9. The learned AR placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Chamber of Tax Consultants and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), reported in (2026) 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bom.). It was submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court had directed the Revenue not to reject applications under section 12AB solely on the ground of absence of an express irrevocability or dissolution clause and had further held that the answer “Yes” to Row No. 6 of Form No. 10AB should not be treated as furnishing false or incorrect information constituting a specified violation. 10. The learned AR further submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the learned CIT(E) subsequently passed fresh orders dated 19.05.2026 granting renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G to the assessee. It was, however, submitted that the fresh registration and approval were granted subject to a condition that their applicability and consequential tax benefits with effect from 01.04.2026 would remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings proposed to be pursued by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The learned AR contended that the aforesaid condition was beyond the scope of sections 12AB and 80G and prayed that the learned CIT(E) be directed to grant unconditional renewal of

6 ITA No. 3700 7 3701/Mum/2026 The Radiology Education Foundation registration and approval. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ILLA Rajesh Foundation v. CIT(E) [ITA No4488 TO 4491/Mum/2026]. 12. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(E). However, considering the fact that registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G had subsequently been granted to the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative fairly did not object to the present appeals being treated as infructuous and dismissed accordingly. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. The subject matter of ITA No. 3701/Mum/2026 is the order dated 31.01.2026 whereby the assessee’s application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB was rejected. The subject matter of ITA No. 3700/Mum/2026 is the separate order of the same date whereby the assessee’s application seeking renewal of approval under section 80G was rejected consequentially. 14. It is an admitted position before us that, subsequent to the passing of the impugned orders, the learned CIT(E) has passed fresh orders dated 19.05.2026 granting renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G to the assessee. Thus, the substantive relief sought by the assessee against the rejection of registration and approval under the impugned orders dated 31.01.2026 already stands granted by the competent authority.

7 ITA No. 3700 7 3701/Mum/2026 The Radiology Education Foundation 15. In view of the subsequent grant of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G, the grievance arising from the impugned rejection orders does not survive for adjudication. The present appeals have, therefore, been rendered infructuous. 16. During the course of hearing, the learned AR made a further prayer that the learned CIT(E) be directed to grant unconditional renewal of registration and approval by deleting the condition incorporated in the subsequent orders dated 19.05.2026. 17. We are unable to entertain the aforesaid prayer in the present proceedings. The appeals before us arise exclusively from the rejection orders dated 31.01.2026. The subsequent orders dated 19.05.2026, whereby registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G were granted subject to certain conditions, are separate and independent orders. Those subsequent orders are not the orders impugned in the present appeals. 18. The legality or validity of any condition incorporated in the subsequent orders dated 19.05.2026 cannot, therefore, be examined or adjudicated in appeals arising from the earlier rejection orders dated 31.01.2026. No cause of action in respect of the conditions contained in the subsequent orders arises in the present appeals. In case the assessee is aggrieved by any condition imposed in the subsequent orders, it shall be at liberty to avail such remedy, including filing separate appeals, as may be available to it in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits of such conditions or on the maintainability of any

8 ITA No. 3700 7 3701/Mum/2026 The Radiology Education Foundation proceedings that may be instituted against the subsequent orders.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 30/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5.

9 ITA No. 3700 7 3701/Mum/2026 The Radiology Education Foundation गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai