BEBAAK COLLECTIVE SANSTHA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

The assessee, namely Bebaak Collective Sanstha, is a public charitable trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The chronology of events assumes significance in the present case. The record reveals that the assessee was originally granted registration under section 12AA vide order dated 15.03.2021. Thereafter, pursuant to the introduction of the new registration regime under the Act, the assessee was granted registration under section 12A(1)(ac) vide order dated 23.09.2021 for the period commencing from Assessment Year 2022-23 up to Assessment Year 2026-27. The assessee was further granted approval under section 80G on 28.09.2024 by the competent authority. Upon the expiry of the validity period of the registration and approval, the assessee filed applications in Form No.10AB on 22.09.2025 seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB as well as renewal of approval under section 80G. Thus, it is evident that the assessee had already undergone scrutiny by the Department and had been found eligible for registration and

While examining the application, the learned CIT (Exemptions) issued a notice dated 30.01.2026 requiring the assessee to furnish documents contemplated under Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules. According to the learned CIT (Exemptions), although a response was filed on 06.02.2026, the assessee had allegedly failed to furnish details and proof of activities undertaken during the relevant period and, therefore, the genuineness of activities could not be established. Proceeding on the aforesaid premise, the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB was rejected. Consequent thereto, the application seeking approval under section 80G was also rejected solely on account of rejection of registration under section 12AB.

Before us, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the very foundation of the impugned order is factually erroneous and contrary to the record. Referring to the paper book, he submitted that in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT (Exemptions), the assessee had furnished all relevant documents including

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The core issue requiring adjudication is whether the learned CIT (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting renewal of registration under section 12AB on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish details and proof of activities undertaken by it. Upon a careful examination of the record, we find that the conclusion reached in the impugned order is not supported by the material available before the authority.

The paper book contains a detailed note on activities together with year-wise summaries of programmes

The activity reports are duly supported by audited financial statements and programme-wise expenditure details. The record discloses receipt of grants and donations from reputed philanthropic institutions including Azim Premji Foundation, Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies and Mariwala Health

In the light of the aforesaid material, we find considerable merit in the contention of the assessee that the observation of the learned CIT (Exemptions) that no details or proof of activities were furnished is demonstrably inconsistent with the record itself. The paper book contains detailed activity reports for three consecutive financial years together with audited financial statements, particulars of grants received and programme-wise utilisation of funds. The impugned order does not discuss any of these documents nor does it record any reason as to why the same were considered inadequate for examining the genuineness of activities. Equally, although a notice was issued by the learned CIT (Exemptions), the impugned order nowhere identifies the specific document which allegedly remained unfiled, the particular deficiency which continued to persist after filing of

Another important aspect which cannot be overlooked is that there is no finding anywhere in the impugned order that the objects of the trust are non charitable in nature. There is equally no finding suggesting diversion of funds, private benefit, violation of statutory provisions, non genuine expenditure, non compliance with any law material for achieving the objects of the trust or abandonment of charitable activities. The impugned order is entirely silent on the charitable objects of the trust, the manner of application of income, the source of funds, the utilisation thereof and the genuineness of expenditure reflected in the audited accounts placed before the authority. The assessee had already been granted registration under section 12AA, thereafter under section 12A(1)(ac), and had also been granted approval under section 80G. The record further demonstrates that there has been no change either in the objects of the trust or in the nature of activities carried on by it. In the absence of any adverse material brought on record by the Revenue, denial of renewal solely on the premise that no activity details were furnished cannot be sustained,

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that all relevant material necessary for examining the charitable objects and genuineness of activities of the assessee was already available before the learned CIT (Exemptions). The assessee had furnished detailed activity reports for three consecutive financial years, audited financial statements, particulars of grants received, programme-wise utilisation of funds and supporting documentation evidencing actual implementation of charitable programmes. The material already available on record leaves no factual vacuum requiring any further verification by the learned CIT (Exemptions). The documentary evidence adequately establishes the continuity, genuineness and charitable character of the activities undertaken by the assessee and no adverse material whatsoever has been brought on record by the Revenue which may justify denial of renewal. We therefore see no justification for withholding renewal of registration under section 12AB. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the learned CIT (Exemptions) is directed to grant renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act.

Insofar as the appeal relating to approval under section 80G is concerned, we find that the rejection thereof is entirely

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.