M/S. LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 2648/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 June 202524 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of delay in filing the application for regularization of provisional registration under Section 12AB should be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal, following the principles of natural justice and a pragmatic approach to procedural laws as advocated by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and observed by a coordinate bench in the case of Narke Green Foundation Charitable Institution, found that the delay was marginally delayed due to medical reasons of the main Trustee and President. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law. Consequently, as the issue of grant of registration under Section 12AB was remanded, the order of the learned CIT(E) rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G was also set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for deciding it afresh. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits of the Section 11 violation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Likeminded Education and Welfare Society, filed appeals against two orders dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (CIT(E)). The appeals pertain to the rejection of registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was granted provisional registration under Section 12A on 24.07.2023. The CIT(E) rejected the application for final approval citing two main reasons: (1) the trust deed/MOA contained provisions for applying funds outside India, violating Section 11, and (2) the application for regularization in Form 10AB was filed late, beyond the prescribed timelines. The assessee contended that no funds were actually applied outside India and that the delay was due to unforeseen medical circumstances of a trustee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB by citing the violation of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the trust deed's provisions for applying income outside India, when no income was actually applied outside India and the assessee intended to amend the MOA? - Assessee's contention: The CIT(E) misinterpreted Section 11 by conflating 'actual application' with 'providing for application' of funds outside India. Section 11 pertains to denial of exemption, not denial of registration. Documentary evidence shows no funds were applied outside India. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB on the grounds of delay in filing Form 10AB, considering the unforeseen medical circumstances of a trustee? - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to unforeseen medical circumstances of a trustee, and the application was filed with a request for condonation of delay. - Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to show any reasonable cause for the delay or genuine hardship in filing within the due date. 3. Whether the Learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration under Section 80G(5)(i) solely on the grounds of rejection of the application under Section 12AB? - Assessee's contention: The denial of registration under Section 12AB would adversely impact its ability to carry out its objectives. The rejection of 80G registration is based on the 12AB rejection. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A,Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 11(1)(c),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 80G(5)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Respondent: Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Shri Jagdish Shetty, AR, Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Pronounced: 11.06.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2647/MUM/2025
ITA No.2648/MUM/2025

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

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The above captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee Trust against two separate orders as passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] pertaining to order passed u/s.12AB/80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 20.02.2025. Since the issues involved are interlinked and also the fact that both appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudicati

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 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →