HOLY TRINITY CHURCH,POWAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS MUMBAI , MUMBAI

These appeals involve substantially identical issues and, therefore, with the consent of the parties were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order, taking ITA No. 5906/MUM/2026 as the lead case. The reasoning and directions therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining appeals.

In the lead appeal, the Assessee filed an application dated 26.09.2025, in Form No. 10AB, seeking renewal of registration. The ld. Commissioner issued a notice dated 24.11.2025, calling for the documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short, “the Rules”). In response, the Assessee furnished certain details and supporting documents through its letter dated 09.12.2025, filed on 21.01.2026.

The Assessee explained that it had not been constituted under a separate trust deed or Memorandum of Association and that its affairs were governed by Canon Law. However, the ld. Commissioner held that the Assessee had not furnished an instrument or other satisfactory evidence of its creation or establishment, or a scheme governing its administration settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court. Referring also to section 5 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and expressing reservations about the applicability of Canon Law, the ld. Commissioner rejected the application by observing and holding mainly as under:

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The question for determination is whether the application could be rejected for want of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association, without adequately examining the alternative documentary evidence of establishment.

Rule 17A(2)(a) requires a self-certified copy of the constitutive instrument where the applicant was established under such an instrument. Clause (b), however, permits a self-certified document evidencing establishment where the applicant was constituted otherwise than under an instrument. These provisions address different situations; a written trust deed is, therefore, not invariably required. Although registration with the competent authority is separately prescribed under clause (c), however, the records underlying such registration may also have evidentiary value under clause (b), depending upon their contents.

Further, section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, excludes public or private religious or charitable endowments from its application. Consequently, section 5 thereof cannot, by itself, justify insisting upon a written instrument in the case of a public religious or charitable trust. Likewise, the absence of a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court is not, by itself, a ground for rejection under section 12AB read with Rule 17A. The Assessee’s reliance upon Canon Law must nevertheless be supported by material establishing its constitution, objects and activities; such reliance does not dispense with the prescribed documentary requirements.

In St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT (Exemption), ITA Nos. 5646 and 5849/MUM/2026, decided on 05.08.2026, the Coordinate Bench held that absence of a formal trust deed could not justify rejection without examining the statutory records evidencing the institution’s establishment. That principle applies to the present controversy. However, the direction granting renewal in that case rested upon its particular, undisputed facts and does not dispense with verification of the documents in the present case.

The Assessee has referred to the Charity Commissioner’s registration certificate dated 11.10.1995 and the registration granted under section 12A dated 10.08.1976. These documents, together with the underlying registration records and evidence of its objects and activities, require consideration on their substantive evidentiary value. The principle of consistency recognised in RadhasoamiSatsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) supports due consideration of previously accepted, unchanged foundational facts. However, earlier registration does not dispense with fulfilment of the statutory conditions applicable to the present application.

In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the application to the file of the ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The ld. Commissioner shall examine the documents evidencing the Assessee’s creation or establishment, including the relevant Charity Commissioner’s records, earlier registration orders, and evidence concerning its objects and activities. The enquiry shall also extend to compliance with such requirements of other laws as are material to achieving its objects, within the scope of section 12AB.

The application shall not be rejected merely for want of a separate trust deed, Memorandum of Association or scheme of administration. The ld. Commissioner shall evaluate whether the alternative documents satisfy Rule 17A(2)(b) and decide the application by a reasoned order, after affording the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee shall furnish the relevant documents and supporting evidence within the time afforded, without delay or default. Accordingly, ITA No. 5906/MUM/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.

As the remaining appeals involve the same issue, the respective impugned orders are also set aside, and the applications are restored to the file of the ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication in the above terms, upon examination of the records of each applicant.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.