TOSHA EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST KAUSA MUMBRA ,THANE vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5415/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not valid. The reasoning was that the impugned order did not record any instance where an opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee before rejecting the application on the grounds of missing a requisite document (Form No. 10AC). The Tribunal considered the undertaking by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee to furnish all required submissions and documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the file of the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner was directed to adjudicate the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to promptly furnish the requisite documents and cooperate with the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Tosha Educational and Welfare Trust Kausa, Mumbra, filed an appeal against an order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune. The assessment year in question is 2026-27. The assessee had applied for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by filing Form No. 10AB. The Commissioner rejected this application, deeming it non-maintainable because the assessee failed to provide a copy of the registration issued in Form No. 10AC. The assessee is aggrieved by this rejection and has approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT noted that the impugned order did not indicate that the assessee was given an opportunity to be heard before the rejection.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its Ld. AR, Sh. Pramod Kumar Parida, argued that the rejection of its application for registration under section 12AB was improper. The Ld. AR undertook to furnish all necessary submissions and documents for a proper adjudication of the application. The assessee implicitly argued that a procedural defect, namely the lack of a hearing, vitiated the order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Smt. Amrita Singh, CIT DR, contended that the application was correctly rejected as non-maintainable due to the assessee's failure to furnish a copy of the registration issued in Form No. 10AC, as required.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 10AC

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

For Respondent: Smt. Amrita Singh, CIT DR
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. 5415/M/2026 Assessment Year: 2026-27

Tosha Educational and CIT (Exemption) Pune, Room no. 322, 3rd Floor, Welfare Trust Kausa, Mumbra, Income Tax Office, PMT Bldg. Shop no. 55 Bldg. no. C-1, Shankar Sheth Road, Pune, Vs. Grace Square CHSL, Opp Maharashtra - 411037 Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Stadium, Kausa Mumbra, Thane, Maharashtra- 400612 PAN – AAETT3993M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent) Present for: Assessee represented by: Sh. Pramod Kumar Parida Ld. AR Revenue represented by: Smt. Amrita Singh, CIT DR

Date of conclusion of hearing: 17.09.2026 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 28.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (in short, “the Ld. Commissioner”), in Form No. 10AD, for the A.Y. 2026–27.

ITA No. 5415/M/2026 2 Tosha Educational and Welfare Trust Kausa, Mumbra

2.

The Assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). The Ld. Commissioner rejected the application as non-maintainable on account of the Assessee’s failure to furnish a copy of the registration issued in Form No. 10AC. Aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal.

3.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The impugned order does not indicate that any opportunity of being heard was afforded to the Assessee before rejecting the application for want of the requisite document. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has undertaken to furnish all the submissions and documents required for proper adjudication of the application.

4.

Considering the aforesaid facts and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and restore the application to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for adjudication afresh, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite documents promptly and cooperate with the proceedings without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.

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

ITA No. 5415/M/2026 3 Tosha Educational and Welfare Trust Kausa, Mumbra

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asst. 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 →