MITHALAL AND BHARAT CRICKET AND SPORTS TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4358/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2026AY 2024-258 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection orders could not be sustained as the CIT(E) did not record any adverse findings regarding the trust's objects or activities. The non-furnishing of the certificate was due to a peculiar transition from the old to the new registration regime and pending departmental proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, had its applications for regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G rejected by the CIT(Exemption). The rejection was primarily based on the non-furnishing of a regular registration certificate from the erstwhile regime, which was unavailable due to pending proceedings before the CIT(E) itself.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of applications for regular registration and approval was justified solely on the ground of non-furnishing of a document unavailable due to pending departmental proceedings and transition to a new regime? Whether the CIT(E) properly examined the substantive eligibility of the assessee for registration and approval?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
For Respondent: Smt. Amrita Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 23/06/2026Pronounced: 24/06/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: These two appeals filed by the assessee arise from separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune dated 21.02.2026 and 31.03.2026 whereby the applications filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking regular registration under section

2 ITA No.4357 & 4358/Mum/2026 Mithalal and Bharat Cricket and Sports Trust 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been rejected.

2.

Briefly stated, the assessee is a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The objects of the trust, as borne out from the trust deed and other material placed on record, are directed towards promotion of cricket and other sports, providing financial assistance and opportunities to aspiring sportspersons, development of sports infrastructure, support to underprivileged and differently abled youth through sports activities and advancement of public welfare through sports and allied charitable activities. The trust was constituted with the avowed object of encouraging and nurturing sporting talent and carrying out charitable activities for the benefit of the general public. The charitable character of the objects of the trust is not in dispute before us.

3.

The record reveals that the assessee had originally applied for registration under section 12AA of the Act on 24.05.2019. The said application came to be rejected by the learned CIT(E), Pune vide order dated 29.11.2019. Aggrieved by such rejection, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mithalal and Bharat Education and Kalakar Trust, Mithalal and Bharat Cricket & Sports Trust and Mithalal and Bharat

3 ITA No.4357 & 4358/Mum/2026 Mithalal and Bharat Cricket and Sports Trust Health Trust vs. CIT(E), Pune in ITA Nos.1114, 1115 and 1116/Mum/2020 vide consolidated order dated 30.08.2021 set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT(E) and restored the matters to his file for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessees. Consequently, the original proceedings under the erstwhile registration regime remained pending before the learned CIT(E) for passing consequential orders in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal.

4.

In the interregnum, the statutory framework governing registration and approval of charitable institutions underwent a substantial change pursuant to the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2020 with effect from 01.04.2021. In accordance with the newly introduced registration regime, the assessee migrated to the new framework and filed applications in Form No.10A. Upon due consideration of such applications, the assessee was granted provisional registration and provisional approval under sections 12AB and 80G respectively. Thereafter, upon expiry of the provisional period, the assessee filed Form No.10AB on 30.09.2025 seeking regular/final registration and approval as contemplated under the statutory scheme.

5.

The grievance of the assessee before us is that the learned CIT(E) rejected both the applications primarily on the ground

4 ITA No.4357 & 4358/Mum/2026 Mithalal and Bharat Cricket and Sports Trust that the assessee had not furnished the copy of regular/final registration or approval. It has been contended that no effective opportunity was afforded before passing the impugned orders and, as reflected from the e-proceeding records placed in the paper book, no notice or requirement calling upon the assessee to remove any alleged defect was effectively served. It has further been pointed out that the learned CIT(E) has nowhere recorded any dissatisfaction regarding the charitable objects of the trust, genuineness of its activities, maintenance of accounts, utilisation of funds or compliance with any of the substantive statutory conditions governing grant of registration under section 12AB or approval under section 80G.

6.

The learned counsel drew our attention to the peculiar factual situation obtaining in the present case and submitted that the consequential proceedings arising from the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 30.08.2021 were themselves pending before the learned CIT(E). Consequently, no order granting regular registration under the erstwhile regime had been passed and no regular registration certificate had come into existence till the date on which Form No.10AB was filed. According to the assessee, it was therefore impossible to furnish a document which was itself unavailable owing to the pendency of proceedings before the very same authority. It was submitted that the non-furnishing of such certificate was

5 ITA No.4357 & 4358/Mum/2026 Mithalal and Bharat Cricket and Sports Trust neither deliberate nor attributable to any lapse or default on the part of the assessee, but was a direct consequence of the peculiar procedural history of the case arising from the Tribunal’s remand order and the subsequent migration to the new registration regime introduced from 01.04.2021. It was accordingly contended that the applications could not have been rejected merely because the assessee was unable to furnish a document which had not come into existence on account of pending proceedings before the department itself.

7.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the rejection of the applications is founded substantially upon non-furnishing of the regular/final registration certificate. At the same time, we find that no adverse finding has been recorded by the learned CIT(E) with regard to the charitable nature of the objects of the trust, genuineness of activities, utilisation of funds, maintenance of accounts or violation of any statutory requirement governing grant of registration under section 12AB or approval under section 80G. The impugned orders do not indicate any examination of the substantive eligibility of the assessee for registration and approval under the provisions of the Act.

6 ITA No.4357 & 4358/Mum/2026 Mithalal and Bharat Cricket and Sports Trust 8. What assumes significance in the present case is that the assessee had already succeeded before the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1114, 1115 and 1116/Mum/2020 vide order dated 30.08.2021 whereby the earlier rejection orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The consequential proceedings pursuant to the said order admittedly had not culminated into issuance of any regular registration certificate under the erstwhile regime. Thus, when the assessee filed Form No.10AB under the new statutory framework, the very document whose absence has formed the basis of rejection was itself not available with the assessee. The explanation furnished by the assessee, therefore, cannot be said to be lacking in substance. Rather, it emanates from the peculiar transition from the old registration regime to the new regime coupled with the pendency of proceedings before the departmental authorities themselves. The impugned orders do not indicate that this peculiar factual background, which goes to the root of the matter, was duly appreciated while rejecting the applications.

9.

We further find merit in the contention of the assessee that despite the detailed material placed on record, including trust deed, financial statements, registration documents and other supporting evidences, the applications have not been examined on the touchstone of the statutory parameters

7 ITA No.4357 & 4358/Mum/2026 Mithalal and Bharat Cricket and Sports Trust prescribed under sections 12AB and 80G. Once provisional registration and provisional approval had already been granted and no adverse finding has been recorded regarding the objects or genuineness of activities, the applications seeking regular registration and approval deserved to be examined on their own merits after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing. Such exercise has not been undertaken in the present case.

10.

Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, particularly the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2021 restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E), the pendency of consequential proceedings arising therefrom, the non-availability of any regular registration certificate under the erstwhile regime, the absence of any adverse finding regarding the charitable character of the trust or genuineness of its activities and the requirements of fair adjudication, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in their present form. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter requires fresh examination by the learned CIT(E) after taking into consideration the entire factual background and the explanations furnished by the assessee.

11.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(E) and restore both the matters to his file for

8 ITA No.4357 & 4358/Mum/2026 Mithalal and Bharat Cricket and Sports Trust adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The learned CIT(E) shall provide due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, consider all documents and explanations that may be furnished and thereafter decide the applications by way of a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all details and documents as may be required during the course of the fresh proceedings.

12.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 24th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 24/06/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, 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 →