SHATATARAKA SAMAJIK SEVA SANSTHA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The grievance of the assessee, in substance, is that the learned CIT (Exemption) rejected the applications primarily on account of non-compliance with the notice issued during the course of proceedings, without appreciating that the assessee had already furnished substantial documentary material along with Form No.10AB and that the non-compliance was neither deliberate nor intentional. It has been submitted that the assessee is a registered charitable institution under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as well as the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and had filed along with its applications various documents including registration certificates, memorandum and objects, earlier registration and approval orders, audit reports, financial statements, income-tax returns and note on activities. According to the assessee, one notice issued by the learned CIT (Exemption) remained unattended due to inadvertence and lack of proper awareness, resulting in the impugned orders being passed without effective consideration of the material already available on record.

We have considered the submissions and perused the material placed before us. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the assessee had filed applications in Form No.10AB seeking regular registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G. It is also borne out from the

In our considered view, proceedings relating to grant or continuation of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G have far-reaching consequences for a charitable institution. Where the record indicates that the assessee had already placed substantial documentary material in support of its claim and the rejection has occurred primarily because one notice remained unattended, the ends of justice would be better served by affording one more effective opportunity to the assessee to place its case before the competent authority. More so, when the impugned orders do not reveal any examination on merits of the objects, activities and supporting documents already furnished by the assessee, it would be appropriate that the entire matter is revisited after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.

Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice and fair adjudication, we set aside the impugned orders dated 04.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT (Exemption) and restore both the matters to his file for adjudication afresh in

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