ADITYA BIRLA EDUCATION TRUST,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 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: N.A.) Aditya Birla Education Commissioner Of Trust Income Tax Vs. (Exemptions) B-4 Aditya Birla Centre S K Ahire Marg Worli, 601, MTNL Building, Mumbai-400030, 6th Floor, Pedder Road, Maharashtra Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, Mumbai-400026 PAN/GIR No. AACTA4967C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Chaitanya Joshi, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Yogesh Kamat, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 25.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(E)”, in Form No. 10AD, rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.

2 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust 5. The learned CIT(E) referred to the condition prescribed under section 80G(5)(i) of the Act and observed that the benefit of section 80G is available only to an institution or fund to which the provisions of sections 11 and 12, section 10(23AA), or section 10(23C) apply. According to the learned CIT(E), in view of the rejection of the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB, the assessee failed to fulfil the condition prescribed under section 80G(5)(i). The application seeking renewal of approval under section 80G was consequently regarded as untenable. 6. On the aforesaid basis, the learned CIT(E), vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed in Form No. 10AD, rejected the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the controversy arising in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by two orders of the Coordinate Benches rendered in the assessee’s own case. In support of the said contention, the learned AR filed copies of the order dated 19.09.2025 passed in ITA No. 4474/Mum/2025 and the order dated 16.06.2026 passed in ITA No. 3804/Mum/2026. 8. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had originally been granted registration under section 12AB vide order dated 28.05.2021 for a period of five years up to assessment year 2026-

4 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust 27. During the subsistence of the said registration, the assessee modified certain clauses of its trust deed. The amended trust deed was approved by the Charity Commissioner on 02.09.2024 and the assessee thereafter filed an application on 24.12.2024 under section 12A(1)(ac)(v) seeking approval of the modified objects. 9. The said application was rejected by the learned CIT(E) vide order dated 30.06.2025. The learned CIT(E) also denied continuation of registration under section 12AB principally on the grounds that the assessee had allegedly applied funds outside India, that its activities were purportedly intended to benefit a particular Marwari community, and that certain workshops, training programmes and allied activities did not constitute education within the meaning of the Act. 10. The learned AR submitted that the aforesaid order dated 30.06.2025 was challenged before the Tribunal in ITA No. 4474/Mum/2025. The Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 19.09.2025, examined all the aforesaid objections and held that rejection of the assessee’s application for modification of objects and the consequential denial of registration under section 12AB were unjustified and bad in law. The Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(E) and directed him to grant approval to the modification of the objects and continue the registration under section 12AB, subject to verification of procedural compliance.

5 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust 11. The learned AR further submitted that, since the registration granted on 28.05.2021 was approaching expiry, the assessee filed an application on 29.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB. The learned CIT(E), however, once again rejected the application vide order dated 30.03.2026 by relying upon the same allegations which had already been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 19.09.2025. 12. The subsequent order dated 30.03.2026 rejecting renewal of registration under section 12AB was challenged by the assessee in ITA No. 3804/Mum/2026. The Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 16.06.2026, held that the order dated 19.09.2025 continued to remain binding upon the learned CIT(E) in the absence of any stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court. The Tribunal observed that mere filing or proposed filing of an appeal by the Department did not eclipse, suspend or dilute the binding nature of the earlier order. The order rejecting renewal under section 12AB was accordingly set aside and the matter was restored to the learned CIT(E) with a direction to grant renewal of registration under section 12AB in conformity with the binding directions contained in the order dated 19.09.2025 and in accordance with law. 13. On the strength of the aforesaid orders, the learned AR submitted that the sole foundation of the impugned order under section 80G, namely, the rejection of registration under section 12AB, no longer survives. It was accordingly prayed that the

6 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust impugned order dated 30.03.2026 be set aside and the learned CIT(E) be directed to grant renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. 14. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E). 15. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The controversy before us lies in a narrow compass. The application of the assessee for renewal of approval under section 80G has been rejected by the learned CIT(E) solely on the ground that its application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had been rejected and, consequently, the condition prescribed under section 80G(5)(i) was not fulfilled. 16. It is evident that the rejection of the assessee’s application under section 80G is not founded upon any independent examination of the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5). The rejection is entirely consequential to the rejection of the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB. 17. We find that the rejection of renewal of registration under section 12AB was the subject matter of appeal in ITA No. 3804/Mum/2026. The Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 16.06.2026, set aside the said rejection. The relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench read as under:

7 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust “5.2 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 19.09.2025, had already examined the very grounds which formed the basis of the rejection order dated 30.06.2025 and, after detailed consideration, directed continuation of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The findings recorded therein have attained binding force inter partes unless modified, reversed or stayed by a competent superior forum. We find that the Ld. CIT(E) consciously declined to follow the directions of the Tribunal solely because the Department had preferred an appeal before the Hon‟ble High Court. Such an approach, in our considered view, is wholly unsustainable in law. Mere filing of an appeal does not eclipse, suspend or dilute the binding nature of a judicial order. Unless the operation of such order is specifically stayed by the appellate forum, it continues to hold the field and remains binding upon all subordinate authorities. During the course of hearing, a specific query was put to the learned Departmental Representative as to whether any stay had been granted by the Hon‟ble High Court against the operation of the Tribunal‟s order dated 19.09.2025. No material whatsoever was placed before us to demonstrate the existence of any such stay. In the absence thereof, the Ld. CIT(E) could not have disregarded the binding directions issued by the Coordinate Bench. 5.3 In the present case, the rejection of the registration in view of modification in the object clause, already stood adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench while deciding the assessee‟s appeal against rejection of approval under Section 12A(1)(ac)(v). Once those findings had attained operative finality and remained unstayed, the Ld. CIT(E) was not justified in resurrecting the same grounds for rejecting the assessee‟s application for renewal under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii). The Tribunal (supra) has already ruled on the issues other than the issue of modification of object clause raised by the ld. CIT(E) viz., (i) the assessee had allegedly applied funds outside India for carrying out charitable activity outside India; (ii) its activities were purportedly intended to benefit a particular „Marwadi‟ community; and (iii) certain workshops, training programmes and allied activities did not constitute „education‟ within the meaning of the Act. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

8 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust 5.4 Accordingly, respectfully following the binding precedent of coordinate Bench in the case of the assessee, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is set aside. The matter is restored to his file with a direction to grant renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Act in conformity with the binding directions contained in the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 19.09.2025 and in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from receipt of this order, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 18. The Coordinate Bench thus set aside the order dated 30.03.2026 rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB and directed the learned CIT(E) to grant renewal in conformity with the earlier order dated 19.09.2025.

9 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust whose rejection the impugned order under section 80G rests. No material has been placed before us to show that either of the said orders has been stayed, reversed or otherwise rendered inoperative by any superior judicial forum. 21. Once the order rejecting renewal of registration under section 12AB has itself been set aside and the learned CIT(E) has been directed to grant renewal of such registration, the very foundation on which the impugned order under section 80G was passed ceases to exist. The consequential rejection of approval under section 80G cannot, therefore, be sustained. 22. We also find that the learned CIT(E) did not record any independent adverse finding regarding the genuineness of the assessee’s activities or non-fulfilment of any condition under section 80G(5), except the consequential objection arising from rejection of registration under section 12AB. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sustaining the impugned order. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the orders of the Coordinate Benches dated 19.09.2025 in ITA No. 4474/Mum/2025 and dated 16.06.2026 in ITA No. 3804/Mum/2026, rendered in the assessee’s own case, we set aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E). 24. The matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to grant renewal of approval under section 80G of the

10 ITA No. 3898/Mum/2026 Aditya Birla Education Trust Act, subject to verification of the requisite procedural compliances and in accordance with law. The learned CIT(E) shall pass the consequential order expeditiouslyafter affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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 : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai