SUVIDYA PRASARAK SANGH,BORIVALI WEST vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04/03/2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“Ld. CIT(E)”] u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), rejecting the application filed by the assessee seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act for A.Y. 2025-26.

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in concluding that the appellant has not complied with all terms of notice dated 6th November 2025.

2.1. Brief facts of the case are as under:- Assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB on 30/09/2025 u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. On verification of the said application, the Ld. CIT(E) observed that the application was not complete and that all the documents required to accompany the application had not been furnished. Accordingly, a notice dated 06/11/2025 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents/details as required under Rule 17A(2) of the Income- tax Rules, 1962.

2.2. The Ld.CIT(E) observed that the assessee had not complied with all the terms of the aforesaid notice. He further observed that, for grant of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, satisfaction was required to be arrived at regarding the objects of the trust or institution, genuineness of its activities and compliance with any other law for the time being in force, as may be material for achieving its objects. According to the Ld.CIT(E), in the absence of necessary compliance by the assessee, such satisfaction could not be arrived at. The application seeking renewal of registration was accordingly rejected vide the impugned order dated 04/03/2026.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

2.3. The grievance of the assessee, in substance, is that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for alleged non-compliance without specifically communicating the documents/details which remained to be furnished and without affording an effective opportunity to cure such deficiencies.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.

2.4. We note that the sole basis for rejection of the application by the Ld. CIT(E) is that the assessee had not complied with all the terms of notice dated 06/11/2025 and had not furnished all the documents/details required under Rule 17A(2). However, from the impugned order, we do not find any specific identification of the particular documents/details which remained to be furnished by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(E) has merely recorded that the assessee did not comply with “all terms” of the notice and, for want of such compliance, proceeded to reject the application.

2.5. In our considered opinion, considering the nature of proceedings and the consequences flowing from rejection of an application seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, the assessee deserves one more effective opportunity to furnish the requisite documents/details and substantiate its claim for registration in accordance with law. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and furnish all such documents/information as may be called for within the stipulated time.

2.6. We therefore set aside the impugned order dated 04/03/2026 and restore the application of the assessee to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration afresh. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to intimate to the assessee the specific documents/details, if any, which are required for examination of its application and thereafter afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite details/documents 4 and extend full cooperation in the proceedings. Upon considering the material so furnished, the Ld. CIT(E) shall adjudicate the application afresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order.

2.7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and all issues are left open for consideration by the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law.

2.8. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4, being in the nature of reliance upon judicial precedents, requires no separate adjudication. Ground No. 5 is general in nature and therefore requires no adjudication.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25-09-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR BEENA PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 25-09-2026 Shamik, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: SUVIDYA PRASARAK SANGH, BABURAO PARANJPE ROAD, VAZIRA 1 NAKA, BORIVALI WEST, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400092, MAHARASHTRA CIT (EXEMPTIONS) MUMBAI, ROOM NO. 601, 6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA HILL, MTNL BUILDING, DR. 2 GOPALRAO DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI