BANDRA (WEST) RESIDENT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2985/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 September 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was not effectively represented before the CIT(Exemptions). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application, stating that the assessee had not complied with the notice and failed to submit required documents. The assessee contended that they had submitted the details manually before the compliance date.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the renewal of registration without properly considering the submissions and documents filed by the assessee. Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to represent their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI JAGADISH

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, CIT DR
Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT (Exemptions), MUMBAI vide DIN: ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025- 26/1086678804(1) dated 02-Mar-2026 for the Assessment Year 2026-27. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application in Form 10AB filed by the applicant assessee on 29.09.2025.

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai erred in stating and observing that the applicant had not complied with all the terms of the notice dated 28.12.2025 under Rule 17A(2) without proper inquiry into the specific facts of the case. The submissions and details were duly filed manually by the assessee on 05.01.2026, ONE DAY BEFORE the compliance date (06.01.2026). However, this fact has neither been acknowledged nor mentioned in the above order. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), Exemptions), Mumbai erred in not granting approval for registration u/s. 12AB in terms of provisions of Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act. All information and details about the objects of the Trust, genuineness of the activities, total receipts and total income of last 4 years, including details of all compliances under law were on record. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) rejected the application for renewal of registration without considering the case laws and stay petitions filed in local jurisdiction of Hon. Bombay High Court. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai erred in rejecting the application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The assessee relies on submissions made in response to notice dated 28.12.2025 whereas the same was ignored. The Ld. CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application alleging and observing that the applicant had not complied with all the terms of the notice which is factually incorrect. The above observations and conclusions are without any merit.

2.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and the order passed by the Revenue Authorities.

3.

We noticed that the application seeking renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the same was not complete and that all the required documents called for along with the application were not submitted by the assessee. Whereas, on the contrary, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the requisite details were duly filed manually by the assessee before the compliance date, i.e., 06.01.2024, but the Ld. CIT(E) had not considered any of the details furnished by the assessee and had wrongly rejected the application seeking renewal.

4.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the Ld. CIT(E), we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(E). Accordingly, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for deciding the same afresh after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

5.

Before parting, we wish to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) shall in no way be construed as reflecting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law.

6.

Needless to mention, the Ld. CIT(E) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 24.09.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: BANDRA (WEST) RESIDENT ASSOCIATION, 5TH FLOOR , PRISCA, ST. LEO ROAD, 1 NEAR BANDRA GYM, BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI-400050, MAHARASHTRA CIT (EXEMPTIONS), 601, 6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA HILL MTNL 2 TEL. BLDG., DR. G.D. MARG, CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →