TULSI GOVARDHAN FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2823/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2026AY 2025-263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, it was appropriate to grant the Assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim for registration under section 12AB of the Act. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Assessee claimed to have filed a response with supporting documents, which was not addressed in the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after providing the Assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and furnishing the required submissions, clarifications, and documents. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not entering into the controversy of whether the response and documents were indeed filed, but rather focusing on providing an opportunity for substantiation. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Assessee, Tulsi Govardhan Foundation, filed an appeal against an order dated 01.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai. The Commissioner had declined the Assessee's application for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2025-26. The reason for rejection was the absence of requisite compliance, submissions, and documents. The Assessee contended that it had filed a response with supporting documents on 20.01.2020 to a notice dated 12.01.2026 issued by the Commissioner, but this response and its accompanying documents were not referred to or discussed in the impugned order. The Commissioner, however, noted that certain clarifications and documents sought vide the notice dated 12.01.2026 remained uncomplied with.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) erred in declining the Assessee's application for registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AY 2025-26 due to alleged non-compliance and lack of submissions/documents? Assessee's Contention: The Assessee argued that it had filed a response with supporting documents on 20.01.2020 to the Commissioner's notice dated 12.01.2026, but the impugned order failed to acknowledge or discuss these submissions and documents. The Assessee relied on the principle of natural justice and the need for a fair hearing. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by the learned CIT-DR, contended that the Commissioner's order was justified as the Assessee had failed to provide the required clarifications and documents sought by the Commissioner via the notice dated 12.01.2026.

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 BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Pronounced: 22.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2823/M/2026 Assessment Year: 2025-26 Tulsi Govardhan Foundation, CIT (Exemptions), 601, 6th Floor, Cumballa Hill 195, Bombay Talkies Compound, Malad West, Vs. MTNL Tel. Bldg., Dr. G. D. Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400064 Marg, Cumballa Hill, PAN – AAATT3487A Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400026 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent) Present for: निर्धाऩिती द्वधिध/Assessee Shri Asif Karmali, Adv. a/w Shtir Jayesh Dhabaria, Ld. AR represented by: िधजस्‍व द्वधिध/Revenue represented Smt. Amrita Singh, Ld. CIT- by: DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 08.09.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 22.09.2026

O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 01.03.2026, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (in short, “the ld. Commissioner”), under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2025-26.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessee had sought registration under section 12AB of the Act, which was declined by the ld.

2 ITA No. 2823/M/2026 Tulsi Govardhan Foundation

Commissioner owing to the absence of the requisite compliance and relevant submissions and documents. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the instant appeal challenging the impugned order.

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee drew our attention to pages 16 to 18 of the Paper Book and submitted that the Assessee had, on 20.01.2020, filed a response along with supporting documents to the notice dated 12.01.2026 issued by the ld. Commissioner, seeking various submissions, clarifications and documents. However, the impugned order neither refers to the said response nor discusses the accompanying documents. Be that as it may, at this stage, we do not consider it necessary to enter into the controversy as to whether the response and documents, as claimed by the Assessee, were in fact filed before the ld. Commissioner. It is, however, evident that the ld. Commissioner had sought certain clarifications and documents vide notice dated 12.01.2026, which, according to him, remained uncomplied with. Consequently, the ld. Commissioner rejected the application for renewal of registration.

4.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to afford the Assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim for registration under section 12AB of the Act by furnishing the submissions, clarifications and documents required by the ld. Commissioner, without any delay or default. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

3 ITA No. 2823/M/2026 Tulsi Govardhan Foundation

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANKIT SWARNKAR) Private Secretary Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →