MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

ITA 2302/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 September 2026AY 2027-20285 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed the Trust Deed dated 25.09.1995, the Supplementary Deed dated 28.02.1996, a copy of Form 10AB, and earlier registration certificates under Sections 12A/12AB and 80G. In light of these documents, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E), Chennai, for reconsideration. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to give a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per Section 282 of the Act. The assessee was also advised to be vigilant and cooperative. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes only. Consequently, the appeal pertaining to Section 80G approval was also restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision, following the same procedure. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues on merits but remanded the cases for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Malankara Syrian Catholic Trust, filed appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai, for the Assessment Year 2027-28. The Trust sought renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The Ld. CIT(E) granted registration under Section 12AB but classified the Trust as 'Religious-cum-Charitable' instead of purely 'Charitable', citing the omission of a supplementary deed that deleted religious objects. The Ld. CIT(E) also rejected the Section 80G application on this ground. The Trust contended that the supplementary deed, though inadvertently not filed, was duly executed and registered, making its objects exclusively charitable. The Trust also argued that it had prior registrations and approvals, and the Ld. CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in classifying the assessee trust as 'Religious-cum-Charitable' instead of 'Charitable' for the purpose of registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the Trust having amended its objects to be exclusively charitable through a supplementary deed. Assessee's contention: The Trust's objects were amended by a supplementary deed dated 28.02.1996, deleting the religious clause. This deed, though not filed with the renewal application, is registered and governs the Trust's exclusively charitable objects. Prior registrations under Section 12A/12AB and 80G as a Charitable Trust should have been considered. The Ld. CIT(E) erred by not affording an opportunity of being heard and by failing to exercise discretion to allow rectification. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground that the Trust was categorized as 'Religious-cum-Charitable', ignoring the amended objects. Assessee's contention: The rejection was based on the incorrect categorization as 'Religious-cum-Charitable'. The amended objects are purely charitable and within the scope of Section 2(15). The Trust had prior approval under Section 80G. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard and did not allow rectification. The settled judicial position that an amended deed governs the Trust's objects was ignored. Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 2(15),Section 282,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 27.08.2026Pronounced: 23.09.2026

PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(E)’), Chennai dated 30.03.2026 and 31.03.2026 respectively, for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2027-28. GROUDS OF APPEAL ITA-2301/Chny/2026

1.

That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in law and on facts in gra

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →