AQUAKRAFT FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: A BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 7282/MUM/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: N.A) CIT (EXEMPTION) AQUAKRAFT FOUNDATION ROOM NO .601, 6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA HILL 242, GROUND FLOOR, MTNL TE BUILDING GEETA NAGAR DR HOMI Vs. BHABHA ROAD,, MUMBAI- PEDDER ROAD, 400005, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA (��थ� Respondent) (अपीलाथ� Appellant) Permanent Account Number of AAOCM3562E Assessee: िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented by: Shri Vijay Biyani, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR by:

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 05-May-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 08.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(E), Mumbai vide DIN: ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1081340452(1), dated 30.09.2025.

ITA 7282/Mum/2025 Aquakraft Foundation

“The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) ["CIT(E)"] erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for registration under section 80G(5) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above ground of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal, so as to enable to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals according to law. 3. The present appeal is in respect of rejection of application made by the assessee for registration u/s. 80G. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that ld. CIT(E) perused the application filed in Form-10AB u/s. 80G(5)(iii) wherefrom it was noted that all the documents required for the purpose of seeking registration u/s. 80G were not furnished. Notices were issued in this regard calling for the details and documents. Assessee furnished partial submissions which is taken note of by the ld. CIT(E). Since, complete details and documents could not be furnished, ld. CIT(E) could not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the parameters for the purpose of granting desired registration. The application so made was rejected on the ground of non- compliance of notices issued by the ld. CIT(E).

3.1. Contention of the assessee in this regard is that it has made the submissions but the same have not been considered while passing the impugned order. For this, reference was made to the e-proceedings response acknowledgment vide No. 129658431100625 placed at page-6 and 7 of the paper book. By ignoring all these submissions digitally placed on record, assessee contended that all the required documents were furnished but remained to be considered. Assessee has placed on record the relevant documentary evidence in the paper book filed before us, containing 340 pages.

ITA 7282/Mum/2025 Aquakraft Foundation

reference to the e-response acknowledgement, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(E) for de novo meritorious consideration of the application filed by the assessee seeking registration u/s. 80G. The documents furnished in the paper book before us need to be considered by the ld. CIT(E) while processing the application moved by the assessee for registration u/s. 80G.

4.1. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by it. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all its submissions, so as to comply with the notices for hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is set aside. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.