SHRI SIMANDHAR JIN ARADHAK TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(WX), EXEM. WARD 2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3319/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) might have erred in concluding that the earlier registration certificate was not produced. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for reconsideration and verification of the submitted documents.

What were the facts?

The appellant trust applied for renewal of registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application, stating the trust failed to produce its earlier registration certificate under the old regime (Section 12A/12AA/10(23C)). The trust claimed it had submitted the required documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) correctly rejected the renewal application for failure to produce the prior registration certificate, and if the certificate was indeed submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 12A,Section 12AA,Section 10(23C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Shah
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath- CIT DR
Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 24.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’ble Accountant Member ITA No. 3319/Mum/2026 for A.Y. 2026-27 Shri Simandhar Jin Aradhak Trust, ITO (WX) Exem, Ward 2(3), 1, Emerald Shopping Centre, Vs. Mumbai. Opp Sona Udyog, Parsi Panchayat, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 069 PAN AAATS0846C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bhavesh Shah Respondent By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath- CIT DR Date of Hearing : 16.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2026 ORDER Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, President:

By this appeal, the appellant – Trust is challenging the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by learned CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai, thereby rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking renewal of regular registration u/s. 12AB of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short).

2.

The brief facts are that the appellant filed an application in Form 10AB seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) found that the form was not complete in all respects. The appellant was requested to produce documents as required under Rule 17A(2) of Income-tax Rules, 1962, (‘Rule’ for short) by issue of notice dated 09.01.2026.

2 ITA No. 3319/Mum/2026 Shri Simandhar Jin Aradhak Trust 3. In pursuance of the said notice the assessee filed a response dated 13.01.2026. The CIT(E) found that the appellant had obtained regular registration u/s. 12AB in Form 10AC dated 24.09.2021 valid for five years i.e. from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27, which was obtained from CPC Bangalore without any human intervention. The learned CIT(E) found that the appellant had failed to produce the earlier registration (under the old regime prior to 01.04.2021) u/s. 12A/12AA/10(23C) of the Act. Thus, the registration obtained form CPC Bangalore was itself invalid. In that view of the matter the application came to be rejected, with liberty to the assessee to pursue the remedies available in law. It is this order, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

4.

We have heard parties. Perused record.

5.

It is submitted by learned AR that the CIT(E) was in error in rejecting the application for renewal on the ground of failure on the part of the assessee to produce earlier registration certificate u/s. 12A/12AA/10(23C) of the Act. It is pointed out that the copy of the said registration certificate had been produced vide reply dated 13.01.2026 and 22.01.2026. It is submitted that the CIT(E) was also not correct in holding the registration u/s. 12AB vide Form No. 10AC dated 24.09.2021 to be invalid without appreciating the fact that the same was granted by the competent authority and remains valid, unless cancelled in accordance with law.

6.

The learned DR has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the renewal of the registration pre-supposes that the appellant was holding valid registration under the old regime viz. section 12A/12AA/1023C of the Act and in absence of the same the renewal has been rejected.

3 ITA No. 3319/Mum/2026 Shri Simandhar Jin Aradhak Trust 7. We have considered the submissions made. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that vide notice dated 09.01.2026, the appellant was requested to furnish complete set of documents mentioned in under Rule 17A(2) of the Rules. The appellant is alleged to have made a response on 13.01.2026. However, in para 3 of the impugned order, the learned CIT(E) has observed that the appellant had not furnished the copy of the registration held u/s. 12AA prior to 01.04.2021 (old regime). The learned AR pointed out that the earlier registration certificated was submitted along with the reply dated 13.01.2026 and 22.01.2026. If that be so, the observations and findings of the learned CIT(E) that the necessary certificate was not furnished is not correct. In such circumstances, we find that it would be appropriate if the CIT(E) re-considers the application in the light of the observations above and verify whether the earlier certificated had been indeed produced.

8.

In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the appellant is restored to the file of the CIT(E) for disposal according to law. If the learned CIT(E) finds that the earlier registration certificated is indeed produced, the application shall accordingly be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- [Prabhash Shankar] [Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT Mumbai, Dated : 24th June, 2026 SA

4 ITA No. 3319/Mum/2026 Shri Simandhar Jin Aradhak Trust Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT, Mumbai. 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ‘G’ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →