Case Law Details
Sneha Manav Foundation Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai)
Absence of Irrevocability Clause Alone Cannot Defeat 12AB & 80G Registration – Mumbai ITAT Treats Appeals as Infructuous After CIT(E) Grants Registration Following Bombay HC Ruling
The Mumbai ITAT dismissed as infructuous the appeals filed by Sneha Manav Foundation after noting that the CIT(E) had subsequently granted registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G in compliance with the Bombay High Court decision in The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CIT(E). The original rejection had been made solely on the ground that the trust deed allegedly lacked an irrevocability clause.
The assessee had challenged the rejection orders by contending that the trust deed and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act already adequately governed dissolution and irrevocability aspects, and further argued that at the stage of registration, the CIT(E)’s enquiry is confined only to examining the objects of the trust, genuineness of activities and compliance with applicable laws.
During the hearing before the Tribunal, the assessee produced subsequent orders dated 16.04.2026 passed by the CIT(E), whereby registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G had already been granted pursuant to the Bombay High Court ruling in The Chamber of Tax Consultants.
In view of these subsequent developments, the ITAT held that the original grievance against rejection of registration no longer survived for adjudication and therefore both appeals had become infructuous. However, the Tribunal clarified that dismissal of the present appeals would not prejudice the assessee’s right to separately challenge the later registration orders insofar as they imposed certain conditions while granting approval.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 29.12.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, [“learned CIT(E)”], rejecting the applications filed by the assessee seeking registration under section 12AB and section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on account of the absence of an irrevocability clause in the trust deed.
2. In its appeal being ITA No. 2427/Mum/2026 against the rejection of registration under section 12AB of the Act, the assessee has raised the following grounds: –
“Material and relevant documents on record ignored
a) The Id. CIT (E) ignored the material & relevant documents w.r.t. existence of irrevocability clause in the trust deed placed on record by YA’ and passed an order rejecting application for renewal under section 12AB; the order deserves to be quashed.
b) The Id. CIT (E) ignored the material & relevant documents w.r.t. dissolution of YA’ being governed by section 22(3B) of MPTA placed on record by YA’ and passed an order rejecting application for renewal under section 12AB; the order deserves to be quashed.
Ground 2
Satisfaction of the triple conditions
a) The conditions to be examined by the CIT (E) vide section 12AA (1), at the stage of renewal of registration, are limited to satisfying himself about the objects of the trust & the genuineness of activities..& the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force -the violation of none of which is the basis of rejection; the order deserves to be quashed.
b) The rejection of renewal despite YA’ satisfying the triple conditions and premising it on considerations not enshrined in the Income-tax Act violates the tenet of the law in this respect & deserves to be quashed in limine.
Ground 3
CIT (E) be directed to rectify his order under section 154
The failure of the Id. CIT (E) to pass an order under section 154 to rectify the mistake apparent from the record, requires that he be directed to do so, in accordance with judgment of Hon’ble ITAT in Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills o Rupam Impex upholding the order of CIT (A) directing AO to rectify the mistake apparent from the record; in the alternative the order be quashed.
Ground 4
Harsh provisions to be enforced when all other options exhausted
The ld. CIT (E) failed to realise that there are sufficient provisions in the Act-assessments & reassessments, section 115TD etc- always available to the department, that should obviate easy enforcement of the harsh action of denial of registration.
Ground 5
Citizen’s charter violated
The said order violates the proclaimed mission in the Citizen’s Charter (Section 119A), inter alia, to be accountable and transparent and act… in a fair and judicious manner’; the order deserves to be quashed at the very threshold.”
3. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) placed on record the copy of the separate orders of even date 16.04.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E) granting registration to the assessee under section 12AB and section 80G of the Act in respectful compliance with the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of The Chamber of Tax Consultants Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), reported in [2026] 184 com 374 (Bom). On perusal of these orders, we find that the registration has been granted subject to certain conditions laid down by the learned CIT(E).
4. Since the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeals pertain to the denial of registration under section 12AB and section 80G of the Act, arising out of separate impugned orders of even date 29.12.2025, we are of the considered view that, in view of the recent orders dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E) granting the registration to the assessee, the said grounds have become infructuous and therefore are dismissed.
5. We may further note that the dismissal of the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeals shall not affect the right of the assessee to challenge the recent orders dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E) granting registration under section 12AB and section 80G of the Act with certain conditions.
6. In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2026
Author Bio
