S S SHAH P M JARIWALA N S DAMANWALA SURAT V S J G ABHYUDATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8678/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 202614 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

These appeals by two trusts, S N Shah A N Damanwala B B Dalia Surat V S J G Abhyudaya Trust and S S Shah P M Jariwala N S Damanwala Surat V S J G Abhyudata Trust, challenge orders dated 01/03/2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected their applications for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The applications in Form No. 10AB were filed on 30/09/2025. The appeals were filed with delays of 79 and 80 days, respectively, for which condonation petitions were filed. The Tribunal noted that the rejection of 80G approval was consequential to the rejection of 12AB registration.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause based on the principles of substantial justice as laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications for renewal of registration under Section 12AB was not justified as the CIT(E) had not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal set aside the orders rejecting Section 12AB registration and restored the applications to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide a reasonable and effective opportunity to the assessees. Regarding Section 80G approval, the Tribunal held that since the Section 12AB rejection orders were set aside, the consequential rejection of Section 80G approval could not independently survive. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders rejecting Section 80G approval and restored those applications to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, to be adjudicated consequent to the decision on Section 12AB applications. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of eligibility for either Section 12AB or Section 80G.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay in filing the appeals, considering the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. The assessee argued that the delay was not deliberate and was due to sufficient cause, while the revenue did not record specific arguments against condonation. 2. Whether the rejection of applications for renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Act by the CIT(E) was justified, given the alleged non-compliance with notices and incomplete documentation. The assessee contended that their applications were rejected without a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The revenue argued that the assessees failed to furnish required documents and details, preventing the CIT(E) from forming the necessary satisfaction under Section 12AB(1)(b). 3. Whether the rejection of applications for renewal of approval under Section 80G of the Act was justified, given that it was consequential to the rejection of Section 12AB registration. The assessee argued that since the Section 12AB rejection was being challenged, the consequential 80G rejection should also be reconsidered. The revenue's position was that the condition under Section 80G(5)(i) was not met due to the rejection of Section 12AB registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12AB(1)(b),Section 80G(5)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 8649/MUM/2026
ITA 8650/MUM/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई पीठें, म ुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: C BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 8649/MUM/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2027 - 28) EAST , MUMBAI - 400069., MUMBAI - 400026. MUMBAI-400069, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AAATS0393L

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented Shri Dhaval Shah, AR by: प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented Shri Srinivasa Rao Vona, CIT by: DR

ITA 8650/MUM/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2027-2028) EAST, MUMBAI - 400069., MUMBAI - 400026. MUMBAI-400069, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AAATS0393L

अपीलधर्थी

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →