SHASHAN SAMRAT SWAPNANAGARI SMT JAIN SANGH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5304/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 September 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case before the concerned authority. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(E) and claimed a violation of natural justice due to the issuance of only one communication. The Revenue did not object to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be granted a proper opportunity of hearing. The issue of whether the registration should have been granted or denied on merits was not decided as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shashan Samrat Swapnanagari SMT Jain Sangh, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (CIT(E)). The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2026-27 and challenged the denial of renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the application because the applicant failed to furnish complete documents and details required under Rule 17A(2) in response to a notice dated January 29, 2026. The assessee argued that the CIT(E) violated the principles of natural justice by issuing only one communication and rejecting the registration without adequate opportunity. The assessee requested the matter be remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) erred in denying the renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the Appellant in violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording an adequate opportunity for hearing, as per Section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice as only one communication was issued, and an adequate opportunity was not provided. Therefore, the order should be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request for a further opportunity to present its case before the authority concerned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKARSMT Jain Sangh

For Respondent: Shri Rajgopal K. Parthsarthy, (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 21.09.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal is preferred by the assessee Trust against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] pertaining to order passed

P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2026-27 Shashan Samrat Swapnanagari SMT Jain Sangh u/s. 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2026-27. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of income tax (Exemptions)/Respondent passed the impugned order dated 25.02.2026 denying the renewal of registration under section 12AB to the Appellant in violation of the principle of natural justice without affording adequate opportunity. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded back to the Respondent for fresh adjudication. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of income tax (Exemptions)/Respondent erred in denying the registration under section 12AB of the Act to the Appellant. Thus, the impugned order may be reversed and the registration may be granted to the Appellant.

3.

According to the impugned order, the ld.CIT(E)on verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the applicant, found that itwas not complete and all the documents required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was issued to the applicant vide notice dated 29.01.2026 requesting the applicant to furnish the complete set of documents/details as required under Rule 17A(2). However, the applicant did not comply with all terms of the said notice. Since registration under section 12AB of the Act was required to be granted in terms of the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act after being satisfied about the objects of the trust or institution, the P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2026-27 Shashan Samrat Swapnanagari SMT Jain Sangh genuineness of activities, and the compliance of any other law for the time being in force as are material for the purposes of achieving its objects, no such verification could done due to non compliance. Accordingly, he rejected the application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act.

4.

None attended the proceedings before the Bench for the assessee. However, a submission dated 18.08.2026 is on record wherein it has been requested to restore the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(E) claiming that he issued only one communication date 29.01.2026 and rejected the registration in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

5.

On due consideration of the request, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves to be allowed one more opportunity to canvass its case before the authority concerned. The ld.DR did not have any objection. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and send the matter back to the ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication of thereof. Needless to state, the assessee would be allowed proper opportunity of hearing.

6.

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2026-27 Shashan Samrat Swapnanagari SMT Jain Sangh Order pronounced in the open court on 21/09/2026. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 21.09.2026 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 12AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →