SMT PUSHPABEN KISHORECHANDRA AJMERA GOSALIYA JAIN DERASAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), MUMBAI

The issue which falls for our consideration lies in a narrow factual compass. The learned CIT (Exemption), while passing the impugned order, has observed that though the assessee had been called upon to furnish the self certified copy of the registration certificate granted under the erstwhile regime under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021, the assessee had failed to furnish the same. Proceeding on this premise, the learned CIT (Exemption) further held that, in the absence of proof of registration under the old regime, the registration granted to the assessee in Form No. 10AC under the amended scheme could not be treated as valid and, consequently, the assessee was not eligible for renewal of registration under section 12AB. Solely on the aforesaid reasoning, the application of the assessee came to be rejected.

Before us, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee invited our attention to the acknowledgement generated at the time of uploading Form No. 10AB dated 25.09.2025, a copy of which has been placed in the paper book at page 12. It was submitted that the acknowledgement itself clearly evidences that the assessee had uploaded the original registration certificate granted under section 12AA dated 07.09.2006, which unmistakably establishes that the assessee was enjoying registration under the erstwhile regime much prior to 01.04.2021. It was, therefore, submitted that the very foundation on which the learned CIT (Exemption) has proceeded is contrary to the

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused the material placed before us. From the documents available on record, particularly the acknowledgement evidencing the documents uploaded along with Form No. 10AB, it is manifest that the assessee had indeed furnished the earlier registration certificate granted under section 12AA dated 07.09.2006. Thus, the categorical finding recorded by the learned CIT (Exemption) that the assessee had failed to furnish the old registration certificate is factually incorrect and is belied by the record itself.

Once this factual position is accepted, the entire edifice of the impugned order collapses. It is not the case of the learned CIT (Exemption) that the assessee was never granted registration under the old regime or that the certificate produced is not genuine or suffers from any legal infirmity. The rejection is founded exclusively on the alleged non furnishing of the earlier registration certificate. Since the material available on record clearly demonstrates that the requisite document had, in fact, been uploaded along with the application itself, the reason assigned in the impugned order ceases to have any factual or legal foundation.

In our considered opinion, where the sole basis for rejection is found to be demonstrably erroneous on the face of the record, the assessee cannot be made to undergo another round of

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT (Exemption) and direct him to grant renewal of registration under section 12AB to the assessee in accordance with law, as the sole ground on which the application has been rejected does not survive.