CHANDRAKANT BHANJI CHANDE MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5839/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 October 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, acknowledged that the assessee had furnished replies, though they were not found satisfactory. The primary reason for rejection by the Commissioner was the failure to satisfactorily explain alleged violations and provide requisite information. However, the assessee claimed to have submitted various documents that warranted proper examination. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Commissioner was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Commissioner's file for fresh consideration. The Commissioner was directed to examine the replies, supporting documents, and other relevant material, specifically consider explanations concerning alleged violations, and pass a reasoned order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's eligibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chandrakant Bhanji Chande Memorial Trust, is appealing against an order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai. The Commissioner rejected the trust's application for regular approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The trust, registered under Section 12A and holding provisional approval under Section 80G, filed for regular approval on 03.12.2024. The Commissioner issued notices seeking information regarding activities, expenditure, and bank statements. The trust's responses were deemed unsatisfactory, and it failed to offer comments on alleged violations or provide satisfactory explanations and supporting documents. Consequently, the Commissioner rejected the application, finding that the conditions for approval under Section 80G(5) were not met. The assessee is aggrieved by this rejection.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by not properly appreciating the replies and supporting documents furnished by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it had duly responded to the notices issued by the Commissioner and furnished a detailed reply comprising 83 pages of supporting documents, which were not properly appreciated by the Commissioner. The assessee claimed to have furnished various documents along with its reply dated 09.05.2025, which required proper examination and consideration for determining its eligibility for approval under Section 80G(5). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Commissioner, rejected the application primarily on the ground that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the alleged violations and furnish the requisite information. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue beyond the reasons stated in the Commissioner's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 12A,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SMT RATNA DASGUPTA

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Mehta-Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri. Mahendra Bishnoi- Ld. CIT DR
Pronounced: 12.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SMT RATNA DASGUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5839/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2026-27 Chandrakant Bhanji Chande Commissioner of Income Memorial Trust Tax (Exemption) B1, Ground Floor, Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Ashapura Apartment, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Vs. New Maneklal Estate, Building, Peddar Road, Ghatkopar West, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Mumbai 400086 Marg, Cumballa Hill, PAN – AAATC3973A Mumbai 400026 (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Present for: Assessee represented by: Shri. Sandeep Mehta-Ld. AR Revenue represented by: Shri. Mahendra Bishnoi- Ld. CIT DR

Date of conclusion of hearing: 12.10.2026 Date of pronouncement: 12.10.2026

O R D E R Per : SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY,JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the ASSESSEE against the order dated 26.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’), rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

In the instant case, the Assessee, a trust registered u/s 12A of the Act and having obtained provisional approval u/s 80G of the Act dated 02.10.2021, filed an application in Form 10AB on 03.12.2024 seeking regular approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. The Ld. Commissioner issued notice dated 29.03.2025, in response to which the Assessee

ITA No. 5839/Mum/2026 2 Chandrakant Bhanji Chande Memorial Trust furnished its reply online. Subsequently, another notice dated 07.06.2025 was issued seeking additional information regarding activities, expenditure and bank statements, which remained uncomplied with. Thereafter, in response to a further notice dated 14.06.2025, the Assessee filed its submission on 18.06.2025 vide letter dated 09.05.2025. However, the Ld. Commissioner observed that the Assessee had neither offered any comments on the violations pointed out in paragraph 3 of the impugned order nor furnished satisfactory explanations and supporting documents. Consequently, being unable to record satisfaction regarding fulfilment of the conditions prescribed u/s 80G(5) of the Act, the Ld. Commissioner rejected the application for approval vide impugned order.

3.

The Assessee, thus, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.

4.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee submitted that it had duly responded to the notices and furnished a detailed reply along with supporting documents comprising 83 pages, placed at pages 206 to 289 of the paper book filed before this Court, which were not properly appreciated by the Ld. Commissioner.

5.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the Assessee furnished replies in response to the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner, though the same were not found satisfactory. The Ld. Commissioner rejected the application primarily on the ground that the Assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the alleged violations and furnish the requisite information. However, the Assessee claims to have furnished various documents along with its reply dated 09.05.2025, which require proper examination and consideration for determining its eligibility for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Considering the nature of the deficiencies pointed out by the Ld. Commissioner, the material stated to have been furnished by the Assessee and the requirement of proper

ITA No. 5839/Mum/2026 3 Chandrakant Bhanji Chande Memorial Trust verification thereof, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Ld. Commissioner shall examine the replies, supporting documents and other relevant material, specifically consider the explanations concerning the alleged violations, and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

6.

The Assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all requisite information and supporting documents without seeking unnecessary adjournments. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Assessee's eligibility for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the ASSESSEE stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SMT RATNA DASGUPTA) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Divya R. Nandgaonkar, Stenographer 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 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →