St John Ambulance Association Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered two appeals filed by St. John Ambulance Association, Maharashtra State Centre, against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai rejecting its applications for renewal of registration under section 12AB and consequential approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first appeal, ITA No. 5704/Mum/2026, arose from the order dated 30.03.2026 rejecting the Form No. 10AB application for renewal of registration under section 12AB, while ITA No. 5686/Mum/2026 concerned rejection of the consequential application under section 80G. Both appeals were heard together and disposed of by a consolidated order.
The assessee was described as a century-old public charitable institution functioning as the Maharashtra State Centre of the St. John Ambulance Association and engaged in medical relief, first-aid and emergency medical training, medical camps and allied charitable activities. The St. John Ambulance Association, India Chapter was established in 1912 and the Maharashtra State Centre came into existence in 1915. The institution was stated to be chaired by the Governor of Maharashtra, functioning under the General Regulations governing the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and continuously registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act since 17.09.1975. It subsequently obtained registration under the new regime under section 12AB, valid up to Assessment Year 2026-27.
Upon expiry of that registration, the assessee filed Form No. 10AB applications for renewal under section 12AB and consequential renewal of approval under section 80G. During the proceedings, the CIT(E.) required documents prescribed under Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, including the instrument creating or establishing the trust. The assessee stated that it was not established under a formal trust deed and had disclosed this position in Form No. 10AB. It relied upon the General Regulations governing the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, its registration certificate under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and other documentary material.
The CIT(E.) nevertheless held that the General Regulations and registration certificate could not be regarded as documents evidencing creation or establishment of the trust. In the absence of an instrument or other document evidencing creation, the CIT(E.) concluded that the satisfaction contemplated under section 12AB(1)(b) regarding the objects of the institution could not be arrived at and rejected the renewal application. The section 80G application was rejected consequentially.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that section 12AB read with Rule 17A did not require rejection merely because a charitable institution had not been constituted through a formal written trust deed. It relied upon its long-standing registration under section 12A since 1975, its subsequent section 12AB registration and the documentary evidence establishing its legal existence and charitable activities. The assessee also specifically contended that the CIT(E.) had proceeded on an erroneous factual premise by treating it as an institution governed by Canon Law, whereas it functioned under the General Regulations of the St. John Ambulance Association. The assessee relied upon Rule 17A(2)(b), which it submitted recognises institutions established otherwise than under an instrument. The Tribunal’s discussion also concerned the framework of section 12AB and the application made in Form No. 10AB.
The Revenue supported the impugned orders, maintaining that the instrument creating the trust was the primary document for examining its charitable objects, intended beneficiaries and legal framework. According to the Department, the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act registration certificate and General Regulations could not substitute the document contemplated under Rule 17A. It therefore argued that the CIT(E.) was justified in concluding that the statutory satisfaction under section 12AB(1)(b) could not be recorded and that rejection of section 80G approval followed consequentially.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders could not be sustained. It observed that the principal issue—whether renewal under section 12AB can be denied solely because an institution was not constituted under a formal written instrument—was substantially governed by the detailed decision rendered by the same Bench in companion appeals pronounced on the same date. According to the Tribunal, the principle laid down in those companion matters was that where the existence, charitable objects and genuineness of activities are otherwise established through contemporaneous statutory records and reliable documentary evidence, absence of a formal trust deed by itself cannot constitute a valid ground for refusing renewal. The supplied order does not identify the companion cases by name or citation.
The Tribunal additionally found substance in the assessee’s grievance regarding the factual premise adopted by the CIT(E.). The written submissions had specifically stated that the assessee functioned under the General Regulations of the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association and had never claimed to be governed by the Code of Canon Law. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E.) nevertheless proceeded on the assumption that Canon Law governed the assessee, which was inconsistent with the material available on record.
The Tribunal further noted the assessee’s more than century-long existence, its continuous registration under section 12A since 1975 and subsequent registration under section 12AB. It observed that the impugned order contained no adverse finding regarding the genuineness of the assessee’s activities and no finding that its charitable objects had ceased to exist or that it had violated the law governing charitable activities. The Tribunal considered that the rejection rested entirely on the perceived absence of a document evidencing creation of the institution and held that such an approach overlooked Rule 17A(2)(b), which itself contemplates institutions established otherwise than under an instrument, as well as the evidentiary value of contemporaneous statutory records and other material.
However, the Tribunal did not finally grant renewal of registration or approval. It noted that the factual foundation differed from that in the companion educational-institution appeals and that the specific question concerning the General Regulations and the CIT(E.)’s erroneous assumption regarding Canon Law had not received due consideration. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(E.) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E.) to examine the application uninfluenced by the observations concerning Canon Law and to independently evaluate the General Regulations governing the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, the registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and other material that may be placed on record. The assessee was to be given due and effective opportunity of hearing and liberty to furnish further material in support of its claim.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order under section 12AB and restored the matter to the CIT(E.) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The consequential order rejecting approval under section 80G was also set aside and restored for fresh consideration. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. Thus, the Tribunal’s order does not itself grant final renewal under section 12AB or approval under section 80G; rather, it requires fresh adjudication by the CIT(E.) after proper consideration of the assessee’s documentary material and the applicable legal principles.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee, St. John Ambulance Association, Maharashtra State Centre, against two separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [“CIT(E.)”]. The first appeal, being ITA No. 5704/Mum/2026, arises from the order dated 30.03.2026 rejecting the assessee’s application filed in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The second appeal, ITA No. 5686/Mum/2026, arises from the consequential order rejecting the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. Since both the appeals emanate from a common set of proceedings and the controversy involved is interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. The assessee is a well-established public charitable institution functioning as the Maharashtra State Centre of the St. John Ambulance Association, an organisation engaged in promoting medical relief, imparting first-aid and emergency medical training, conducting medical camps and allied charitable activities. As brought on record, the St. John Ambulance Association, India Chapter was established in the year 1912, while the Maharashtra State Centre came into existence in 1915 and has been functioning continuously for more than a century. The institution is chaired by the Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra and functions under the General Regulations governing the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association. It is duly registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and has enjoyed registration under section 12A of the Act since 17.09.1975. Thereafter, it was granted registration under the new regime through Form No. 10AC, which remained valid up to Assessment Year 2026-27. Upon the expiry of the said registration, the assessee filed applications in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal
3 of registration under section 12AB and the consequential renewal of approval under section 80G.
3. During the course of the proceedings, the learned CIT(E.) called upon the assessee to furnish the documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, including the instrument creating or establishing the trust. The assessee explained that it was not established under a formal trust deed, and this position had been specifically disclosed in Form No. 10AB itself. It was further explained that the institution functions under the General Regulations of the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, and the relevant regulations, the registration certificate issued under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and other supporting documents were furnished in support of the application. The learned CIT(E.), however, held that the General Regulations and the registration certificate could not be regarded as documents evidencing the creation or establishment of the trust and that, in the absence of an instrument creating the trust or any other document evidencing its creation, he was unable to arrive at the satisfaction contemplated under section 12AB(1)(b) regarding the objects of the institution. On that reasoning, the application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB came to be rejected. Since approval under section 80G was considered to be consequential upon registration under section 12AB, the application under section 80G was also rejected.
4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. The learned counsel submitted that although the issue involved is broadly akin
4 to that arising in the batch of educational institutions decided by this Bench on the same date, the present case stands on a slightly different factual footing inasmuch as the assessee is not a Catholic educational institution, but a century-old charitable organisation engaged in medical relief and first-aid services under the worldwide banner of the St. John Ambulance Association. Nevertheless, according to the learned counsel, the core controversy remains the same, namely, whether renewal under section 12AB can be denied solely because the institution was not constituted under a formal written trust deed, despite its undisputed existence as a long-standing public charitable institution continuously enjoying registration under the Income- tax Act. The controversy, therefore, centres around the true scope of section 12AB read with Rule 17A and the nature of documentary evidence sufficient to establish the creation and existence of a charitable institution.
5. The learned counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned orders and submitted that the learned CIT(E.) has proceeded on an erroneous understanding of section 12AB of the Act read withRule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.. It was submitted that the assessee is a century-old public charitable institution engaged in the field of medical relief and first-aid training and has continuously enjoyed registration under section 12A since 17.09.1975, followed by registration under the new regime under section 12AB. It was pointed out that while filing Form No. 10AB, the assessee had specifically disclosed that it was not established under an instrument and had also furnished the General RegulationMaharashtra Public Trus governing the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, the registration certificate issued under the sts Act and the relevant documentary evidence evidencing its legal existence and continuous charitable activities. The learned counsel submitted that the learned CIT(E.) has proceeded on an incorrect factual premise by treating the assessee as an institution governed by Canon Law, whereas the assessee had categorically explained that it functions under the General Regulations of the St. John Ambulance Association and not under the Code of Canon Law. It was, therefore, contended that the impugned orders suffer from a clear non-application of mind to the material placed on record. It was further submitted that Rule 17A(2)(b) itself recognises institutions created or established otherwise than under an instrument and, therefore, the absence of a formal trust deed could not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for rejecting the application. Reliance was placed upon the judicial precedents referred to in the written submissions in support of the proposition that renewal under section 12AB cannot be denied where the existence, charitable objects and genuineness of activities of the institution otherwise stand established.
6. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the reasoning recorded in the impugned orders. It was submitted that the instrument creating the trust constitutes the primary document for examining the charitable objects of the institution, the intended beneficiaries and the legal framework governing its administration. According to the Revenue, the registration 6 certificate under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Actand the General Regulations relied upon by the assessee cannot substitute the document evidencing the creation or establishment of the trust as contemplated under Rule 17A. It was, therefore, argued that in the absence of such foundational document, the learned CIT(E.) could not record the satisfaction contemplated under section 12AB(1)(b) regarding the objects of the institution and was, therefore, justified in rejecting the application for renewal of registration. Consequently, the rejection of approval under section 80G, being purely consequential, was also stated to be in accordance with law.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, examined the impugned orders and perused the material available on record. Though the present assessee is engaged in the field of medical relief and not education, we find that the principal legal issue arising for consideration is substantially the same as that decided by this Bench in the batch of appeals pronounced on the same date concerning renewal of registration under section 12AB. The controversy in the present case also centres on the interpretation of Rule 17A(2) and whether renewal can be refused solely on the ground that the institution was not constituted under a formal written instrument. However, one distinguishing aspect which requires consideration is the specific grievance of the assessee that the learned CIT(E.), while passing the impugned order, proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the assessee was governed by the Code of Canon Law, whereas the material placed before him clearly disclosed that the assessee functions under the General Regulations of the St. John Ambulance Association. We shall, therefore, examine the validity of the impugned orders keeping in view both the principles already laid down by this Bench in the companion matters as well as the aforesaid factual aspect emerging from the record.
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned orders and examined the entire material placed before us. In our considered opinion, the impugned orders cannot be sustained for more than one reason. At the outset, we find that the principal issue arising in these appeals, namely, whether renewal of registration under section 12AB can be denied solely on the ground that the institution was not constituted under a formal written instrument, already stands governed by the detailed decision rendered by this Bench in the batch of companion appeals pronounced on the same date. In those matters, after an exhaustive examination of section 12AB of the Act, Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules and the judicial precedents governing the field, we have held that where the existence, charitable objects and genuineness of activities of an institution are otherwise established through contemporaneous statutory records and other reliable documentary evidence, the absence of a formal trust deed, by itself, cannot constitute a valid ground for refusing renewal of registration.
9. Apart from the aforesaid legal position, we also find considerable substance in the grievance raised by the assessee that the learned CIT(E.) has proceeded on an incorrect factual premise while dealing with the application. The written
8 submissions placed before the Commissioner specifically stated that the assessee is St. John Ambulance Association, Maharashtra State Centre, functioning under the General Regulations of the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, and had never claimed to be governed by the Code of Canon Law. However, while passing the impugned order, the learned CIT(E.) proceeded on the assumption that the assessee was governed by Canon Law and rejected the explanation on that basis. This factual assumption is demonstrably inconsistent with the material available on record and lends support to the contention of the assessee that the explanation furnished in response to the statutory notices was not examined in its proper perspective.
10. We further find that the assessee has been functioning as a recognised public charitable institution for more than a century and has continuously enjoyed registration under section 12A since the year 1975, followed by registration under section 12AB under the new regime. Equally, there is no adverse finding in the impugned order regarding the genuineness of the activities carried on by the assessee, nor has the learned CIT(E.) recorded any finding that the charitable objects of the institution have ceased to exist or that there has been any violation of the provisions of law governing its charitable activities. The rejection rests entirely on the perceived absence of a document evidencing the creation of the institution. In our view, such an approach overlooks the scope of Rule 17A(2)(b), which itself contemplates institutions established otherwise than under an instrument, and fails to appreciate the 9 evidentiary value of the contemporaneous statutory records and other material produced by the assessee.
11. At the same time, we are conscious that the factual foundation in the present case is not entirely identical to the batch of educational institutions decided by us earlier. Here, the assessee has specifically asserted that it is governed by the General Regulations of the St. John Ambulance Association and that the learned CIT(E.) has rejected the application on an erroneous factual assumption. Since this aspect does not appear to have received due consideration in the impugned order, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E.) for a fresh examination after taking into account the General Regulations and all other documents relied upon by the assessee, as well as the legal principles governing Rule 17A(2)(b) discussed in the lead judgment of this Bench.
12. We clarify that while undertaking the fresh adjudication, the learned CIT(E.) shall examine the assessee’s application uninfluenced by the observations contained in the impugned order regarding the applicability of Canon Law and shall independently evaluate the documentary material produced by the assessee, including the General Regulations governing the Indian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, the registration under theMaharashtra Public Trusts Act and such other material as may be placed before him. Needless to mention, the assessee shall be afforded due and effective opportunity of hearing and shall be at liberty to furnish any further material in support of its claim.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order passed under section 12AB is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E.) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and the principles laid down by this Bench in the companion matters decided on the same date. Since the rejection of approval under section 80G is purely consequential upon the rejection of registration under section 12AB, that order is also set aside and restored to the file of the learned CIT(E.) for fresh consideration. The appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
14. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 5th August, 2026.
