GLORIA CHRUCH,BYCULLA,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5864/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 September 2026AY 2026-274 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application at the threshold for want of a formal Instrument of Trust/MoA was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the issue of the absence of a formal trust deed has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Tsurphu Labrang, which was also upheld by the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal also referred to Rule 17A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which contemplates situations where a trust is created 'otherwise than by an instrument', allowing for the production of other documents evidencing establishment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the file of the learned CIT (Exemptions) for disposal on merits, considering other requirements and compliances, after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The principle is that a trust established otherwise than by a formal instrument may still be eligible for registration if it provides other documentary evidence of its establishment and activities.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Gloria Church, a trust, filed an application in Form 10AB on September 28, 2025, seeking renewal of its registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT (Exemption) rejected the application because the trust did not furnish a copy of its Instrument of Trust/Memorandum of Association (MoA). The appellant contended that it is governed by Canon Law and does not require a formal trust deed. The CIT (Exemption) considered the production of such a document mandatory for examining the trust's objectives and genuineness for registration/renewal. This rejection order is under challenge before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the application for renewal of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of the appellant trust not furnishing a formal Instrument of Trust/Memorandum of Association (MoA)? Assessee's Arguments: The appellant argued that a formal trust deed is not mandatory for registration under Section 12A/12AA of the Act, relying on ITAT decisions in Basilica of Our Lady of The Mount and St. John The Evangelist Church, and the ITAT decision in Tsurphu Labrang, confirmed by the Delhi High Court. They also cited Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Court decisions (Hazarat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust and Laxminarayan Maharaj) stating that findings of the Charity Commissioner operate as findings in rem and cannot be ignored by Income Tax authorities. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue contended that the learned CIT (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the application as there is a requirement to examine the object, nature, and genuineness of the trust's activities for grant or renewal of registration, which cannot be done without the foundational documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12AA,Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms Vasanti Patel
For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath- CIT DR, Shri Rajgopal Parthasarthi, SR DR
Hearing: 09.09.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, President:

By this appeal, the appellant-trust is challenging the order dated 29.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT (Exemption).

2.

The appellant filed application in Form 10AB on 28.09.2025 under clause 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) seeking renewal of its regular registration.

3.

The learned CIT (Exemption) found that the appellant trust has not furnished copy of Instrument of Trust/Memorandum of Association (MoA), which “constitutes foundational documents” governing the creation or

ITA No.5864/Mum/2026 Ghoria Church establishment of the Trust/Institution. The appellant claimed that it is governed by the Canon Law and does not require execution of any formal trust deed. The learned CIT (Exemption) has refused to accept the same, as in his opinion, it is mandatory condition for appellant trust seeking registration or renewal thereof to produce Instrument of Trust/MoA setting out the objections/purposes of the Trust, which need to be examined for grant/renewal of the registration. In that view of the matter application came to be rejected, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

4.

We have heard parties. Perused record.

5.

On behalf of the appellant reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Basilica of Our Lady of The Mount in ITA No. 5551/MUM/2026 dated 27.08.2026, St. John The Evangelist Church in ITA No. 5828/MUM/2026 dated 08.09.2026. The learned AR has also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in Tsurphu Labrang (2016) 159 ITD 848 (Del) wherein this Tribunal has held that as per the provisions of the Act and Rules, execution of formal Deed of Trust is not necessary for grant of registration under Section 12AA/12A of the Act. It is pointed out that the said decision has been confirmed by the Delhi High Court in ITA No. 484/2016 dated 01.08.2016. Further, reliance is also placed on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxminarayan Maharaj 150 ITR 465 (Madhya Pradesh) and decision of Gujarat High Court in Hazarat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust, 256 ITR 193 (Gujarat), wherein it has been held that a finding of the Charity Commissioner in an inquiry under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 operates as a finding in rem and cannot be ignored by the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No.5864/Mum/2026 Ghoria Church 6. The learned DR has submitted that there is a requirement to examine the object/nature and the genuineness of the activities performed by the Trust for grant or renewal of the registration and in the absence of the same, the learned CIT(Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the application.

7.

We have carefully considered the circumstances and the submissions made. As noticed earlier, the application is rejected solely on the ground that the appellant has not produced the Instrument of Trust/MoA. The said issue as noticed earlier is decided by this Tribunal in the case of Tsurphu Labrang (supra), which order has also found favour with the Delhi High Court. As noticed earlier, the record does not disclose whether these orders were brought to the notice of learned CIT(Exemptions). Be that as it may, we find that once the issue of absence of formal Instrument of Trust/MoA is already decided and is covered by order of the Tribunal as aforesaid, it would be appropriate if the application is considered by the CIT(Exemptions) on its own merits on other requirements/compliances, if any. It is necessary to note that Rule 17A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’ for short) contemplates a situation where the trust is created or established, ‘otherwise than by an instrument’, in which case the applicant can produce certified copy of document/s evidencing the establishment of the trust. We, therefore, find that the rejection of the application, at the threshold, for want of a formal Instrument of Trust/MoA is not justified.

8.

In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the appellant is restored to the file of the learned CIT(Exemptions), for disposal on merits according to law. Needless to mention that the appellant shall co-operate and comply with any

ITA No.5864/Mum/2026 Ghoria Church

requisition for production of documents/information as may be required by the learned CIT(Exemptions). The application shall be decided after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th September, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- [Prabhash Shankar] [Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT Mumbai, Dated : 28th September, 2026 SA

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT, Mumbai. 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ‘G’ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)

All 679 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →