SUNTECK FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4641/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2027-28) Sunteck Foundation CIT (Exemptions) 5th Floor, Sunteck 601, 6th Floor, Centre 37-40, Subhash Vs. Cumballa Hill MTNL Road, Vile Parle East, TE Building, Pedder Mumbai-400 057 Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukch Marg, Mumbai-400 026 PAN/GIR No. ABGCS4738R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Shefali Garg, Ld. AR Revenue by Ms. Shabana Parveen, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 17.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(E)"] dated 28.02.2026 in Form No.10AD whereby the application filed by the assessee seeking approval under section 80G of the Income-tax

2 ITA No. 4641/Mum/2026 Sunteck Foundation Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] came to be rejected.

3 ITA No. 4641/Mum/2026 Sunteck Foundation No.10AC dated 31.12.2021 for a period of five years commencing from A.Y. 2022-23 and ending with A.Y. 2026-27. 5. The learned CIT(E) discussed the amended approval regime introduced with effect from 01.04.2021 and observed that institutions already enjoying approval under section 80G under the earlier regime were required to obtain fresh approval under the amended provisions. According to the learned CIT(E), since the assessee failed to furnish evidence of approval under section 80G existing prior to 01.04.2021, the validity of approval granted vide Form No.10AC dated 31.12.2021 could not be established. The learned CIT(E), therefore, concluded that the approval claimed by the assessee could not be treated as valid in law and consequently held that the application seeking renewal of approval in Form No.10AB was not allowable. On the aforesaid reasoning, the application of the assessee came to be rejected vide order dated 28.02.2026 passed in Form No.10AD. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee had inadvertently filed the application under an incorrect provision/category of the Act. It was submitted that the learned CIT(E), instead of examining the eligibility of the assessee on merits and guiding the assessee regarding the proper statutory route available under law, proceeded to reject the application on a

4 ITA No. 4641/Mum/2026 Sunteck Foundation technical ground relating to the nature of the application filed. The learned AR submitted that the impugned order does not contain any finding regarding the charitable objects of the assessee, genuineness of its activities, or satisfaction of the substantive conditions prescribed under section 80G of the Act. He therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine the assessee's claim under the appropriate provision and decide the application on merits in accordance with law. 8. The learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that he has no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh examination and adjudication in accordance with law. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short controversy arising in the present appeal relates to the rejection of the assessee's application seeking approval under section 80G of the Act. 10. We find that the learned CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that though the assessee was granted approval under section 80G vide Form No.10AC dated 31.12.2021 for the period from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27, it failed to furnish evidence of approval under section 80G under the erstwhile regime prior to 01.04.2021. According to the learned CIT(E), in the absence of such approval under the old regime, the validity of the approval granted vide Form No.10AC could not be established and,

5 ITA No. 4641/Mum/2026 Sunteck Foundation therefore, the application seeking renewal of approval was not maintainable. 11. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the application had inadvertently been filed under an incorrect category under the amended approval regime governing section 80G and, therefore, the learned CIT(E) did not have an occasion to examine the assessee's entitlement under the appropriate statutory provision. It was submitted that the assessee may be permitted to pursue its claim under the correct provision and the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for adjudication on merits. The learned Departmental Representative fairly stated that he had no objection if the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. Under the scheme governing approval under section 80G, different categories of applicants are required to seek approval in accordance with the provisions applicable to their respective factual situations. The determination of the correct category under which an application is required to be considered is a jurisdictional prerequisite before examining the applicant's entitlement on merits. 13. In the present case, the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the assessee had filed an application seeking renewal of approval under section 80G. However, before us, the assessee

6 ITA No. 4641/Mum/2026 Sunteck Foundation has taken a specific stand that the application was not filed under the appropriate category and that the claim requires consideration under the correct statutory provision. We find that the impugned order does not contain any adjudication regarding the fulfilment of conditions prescribed under section 80G, the nature of the activities carried on by the assessee, or its eligibility for approval on merits. The rejection has been made solely on the basis of the perceived defect relating to the nature of approval claimed by the assessee and the absence of evidence regarding approval under the pre-amended regime. 14. In our considered opinion, once such a contention is raised by the assessee and the Revenue has no objection to restoration of the matter, the ends of justice would be met by restoring the issue to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) shall examine the nature of approval already held by the assessee, determine the correct statutory provision and category applicable to the assessee's case under the scheme of section 80G and, thereafter, consider the assessee's claim afresh in accordance with law. If required, the assessee shall be permitted to file the appropriate application and furnish such documents and explanations as may be considered necessary by the learned CIT(E). 15. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim for approval under section 80G. All issues, including the applicability of the relevant statutory provision, satisfaction of the prescribed conditions and

7 ITA No. 4641/Mum/2026 Sunteck Foundation entitlement of the assessee to approval, are left open for examination by the learned CIT(E) in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai