St. John The Evangelist Church Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
SECTION 12AB &; RULE 17A: A 71-YEAR-OLD CHURCH NEED NOT PRODUCE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE CALLED “TRUST DEED”
Renewal refused for want of a formal instrument
The assessee, St. John the Evangelist Church, was a public religious & charitable trust established in 1955 and registered under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now known as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
It applied in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) for renewal of its regular registration u/s 12AB.
During the proceedings, the CIT(E) required the assessee to furnish a self-certified copy of the instrument creating or establishing the trust. Alternatively, it was asked to furnish a document evidencing its creation or establishment.
The CIT(E) also called for a copy of any scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court governing the institution’s management & administration.
No trust deed—but seven decades of statutory existence
The assessee explained that it had not been constituted under a separate trust deed or Memorandum of Association.
It nevertheless furnished its Schedule II application filed before the Charity Commissioner on 03.01.1955, the public-trust registration certificate dated 20.06.1955, its earlier registration u/s 12A dated 29.10.1976 & the registration granted under the substituted regime in Form 10AC dated 31.05.2021.
The Schedule II application contained the institution’s name, particulars of trustees & managers, religious and charitable objects, movable & immovable properties, sources of income, expenditure & other relevant details.
Despite this material, the CIT(E) held that these documents merely established that registration proceedings had taken place. According to him, they did not independently disclose precisely when, by whom & through which legally binding act the institution was created.
The renewal application was therefore rejected for want of a formal instrument or another acceptable document evidencing creation.
Rule 17A recognises institutions born without instruments
The ITAT examined Rule 17A(2), which recognises two different modes of creation or establishment.
Clause (a) applies where a trust or institution is created under an instrument. Such an applicant must furnish a self-certified copy of that instrument.
Clause (b) specifically deals with an institution created or established otherwise than under an instrument. Such an applicant must furnish a document evidencing its creation or establishment.
These requirements are alternative, not cumulative. If a formal trust deed were mandatory in every case, the expression “otherwise than under an instrument” in clause (b) would become redundant.
The Rule therefore expressly contemplates old religious or charitable institutions whose legal existence may be evidenced by contemporaneous public records rather than a conventional trust deed.
Schedule II was more than a registration receipt
The Tribunal rejected the view that the Schedule II application was merely evidence of registration.
The application recorded the institution’s essential constitutional particulars, including its objects, administration, trustees, properties, income & expenditure. The Charity Commissioner issued the registration certificate only after undertaking the statutory enquiry prescribed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
The Schedule II application & registration records had to be read cumulatively & in their statutory setting. Their evidentiary worth did not disappear merely because they were not titled “Trust Deed” or “Memorandum of Association”.
For an institution established otherwise than under a formal instrument, such contemporaneous statutory records constituted substantive evidence of its creation, establishment & continued existence for Rule 17A(2)(b).
Clause (c) does not sterilise evidence relevant to clause (b)
The CIT(E) reasoned that registration with the Charity Commissioner was separately covered by clause (c) of Rule 17A(2), and therefore could not fulfil the documentary requirement under clause (b).
The ITAT accepted that the clauses prescribe distinct requirements. However, documents forming part of the Charity Commissioner’s statutory proceedings do not thereby lose their evidentiary value.
The Schedule II application, enquiry records & entries made by the statutory authority may simultaneously evidence creation under clause (b), even though the ultimate registration certificate is separately furnished under clause (c).
What matters is the substance & probative value of the document, not merely the label attached to it.
A management scheme is not compulsory for every trust
The ITAT also rejected the CIT(E)’s insistence upon a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or competent Court.
Such a scheme may be framed where the governing law requires it or where particular circumstances concerning management call for judicial or statutory intervention.
Neither section 12AB nor Rule 17A makes a management scheme an invariable precondition for registration. Its absence therefore could not justify rejection of the renewal application.
Coordinate Benches had already answered the issue
The Tribunal followed St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5646 & 5849/Mum/2026, dated 05.08.2026, and St. Ignatius Church v. CIT(E), ITA No. 6052/Mum/2026, dated 31.08.2026.
Those decisions held that absence of a formal trust deed is not fatal where an old religious or charitable institution furnishes cogent statutory material establishing its creation, objects & continued existence.
Registration enquiry is not an annual assessment
Since the CIT(E) had rejected the application at the threshold, he had not examined the remaining statutory requirements.
The ITAT therefore restored the application for the limited purpose of examining the objects, genuineness of activities & compliance with laws material to achieving those objects.
The CIT(E) was prohibited from again rejecting the application merely for want of a trust deed, Memorandum of Association or management scheme.
The Tribunal clarified that sections 11 to 13 principally govern the availability & computation of exemption in individual assessment years. Questions relating to actual application of income ordinarily belong to assessment proceedings, not the registration stage.
Decision
The rejection of renewal merely for want of a formal constitutional instrument was set aside.
The CIT(E) was directed to consider the Schedule II application, public-trust registration certificate, earlier income-tax registrations & other documents according to their substantive evidentiary value.
Subject to verification of the statutory conditions u/s 12AB, renewal was directed to be granted in accordance with law after reasonable opportunity & expeditious disposal.
Cases Discussed
- St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5646 & 5849/Mum/2026, order dated 05.08.2026.
- St. Ignatius Church v. CIT(E), ITA No. 6052/Mum/2026, order dated 31.08.2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
1. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, rejecting the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of its regular registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Brief facts are that the assessee, St. John the Evangelist Church, is a public religious and charitable trust established in the year 1955 and registered under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now known as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The assessee had filed an application in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of its regular registration. During the course of proceedings, the learned CIT(E) required the assessee to furnish a self-certified copy of the instrument creating or establishing the trust or, in its absence, a document evidencing its creation or establishment. The assessee was also called upon to furnish a copy of any scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court for its proper management and administration.
3. In response, the assessee explained that it had not been constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association. It furnished the application in Schedule II filed before the Charity Commissioner on 03.01.1955, the certificate dated 20.06.1955 registering it as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, its earlier registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act dated 29.10.1976, the registration granted under the new regime in Form No. 10AC dated 31.05.2021 and other documents concerning its constitution, objects and activities. The learned CIT(E), however, held that the documents so furnished merely established that proceedings for registration had taken place and did not disclose when, by whom and through what legally binding act or document the assessee was created or established. He further observed that registration with the Charity Commissioner, contemplated separately under clause (c) of Rule 17A(2), could not substitute the document required under clause (a) or clause (b) thereof. Since the assessee had neither produced an instrument of trust nor, according to him, any document independently evidencing its creation or establishment, the application was rejected.
4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a church and public religious-cum-charitable institution which has been in existence for more than seven decades. It was established and is administered under the religious jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and has been registered as a public trust since 20.06.1955. Its objects and activities are religious as well as charitable, including educational and medical relief and assistance to the public. The assessee also attends to the spiritual and temporal needs of its congregation and, being situated in the precincts of the Mumbai Port, renders assistance to seafarers through its Port Chaplain.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the application in Schedule II made before the Charity Commissioner is not a bare certificate of registration. It contains the name of the trust, particulars of its trustees and managers, its religious and charitable objects, details of its movable and immovable properties, sources of income, expenditure and other material particulars. The certificate of registration was issued by the Charity Commissioner only after carrying out the inquiry contemplated under the State enactment. These contemporaneous statutory records, read together, constitute sufficient evidence of the creation, establishment and continued existence of the assessee within the meaning of Rule 17A(2)(b).
6. It was further contended that Rule 17A(2) itself draws a distinction between an applicant created or established under an instrument and one created or established otherwise than under an instrument. In the latter case, clause (b) requires a document evidencing its creation or establishment and does not mandate a formal trust deed. Therefore, insistence upon an instrument of trust even in a case falling under clause (b) would obliterate the distinction consciously drawn by the Rule and render clause (b) nugatory. It was also submitted that there is no statutory requirement that every public religious or charitable trust must obtain a scheme from the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court as a condition precedent for registration under section 12AB.
7. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Coordinate Benches rendered in similar matters, including St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E) in ITA Nos. 5646 and 5849/Mum/2026, order dated 05.08.2026, and St. Ignatius Church v. CIT(E) in ITA No. 6052/Mum/2026, order dated 31.08.2026, and submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
8. The learned DR, while supporting the reasoning given in the impugned order, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for examining the objects and genuineness of the assessee’s activities and its compliance with the conditions governing exemption under sections 11 to 13 of the Act.
9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The application has been rejected principally because the assessee did not furnish a formal instrument of trust or any scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court. It is, however, undisputed that the assessee has been registered as a public religious and charitable trust under the Bombay/Maharashtra Public Trusts Act since 20.06.1955. It was also registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act as far back as 29.10.1976 and was thereafter granted registration under the substituted regime in Form No. 10AC on 31.05.2021. Thus, the identity, existence and public religious and charitable character of the assessee have received statutory recognition for several decades.
10. Rule 17A(2) recognises two distinct modes in which a trust or institution may have been created or established. Clause (a) applies where the applicant has been created or established under an instrument, in which event a self-certified copy of such instrument is required to be furnished. Clause (b), on the other hand, applies where the applicant has been created or established otherwise than under an instrument and requires a self-certified copy of the document evidencing its creation or establishment. The two clauses cater to different factual situations and cannot be construed as imposing a cumulative requirement. If a formal instrument were indispensable in every case, the expression “otherwise than under an instrument” occurring in clause (b) would be denuded of all meaning.
11. In the present case, the assessee furnished not merely the certificate of its registration, but also the contemporaneous Schedule II application made before the Charity Commissioner containing particulars of its name, trustees and managers, religious and charitable objects, properties, income and expenditure. The certificate of registration was thereafter issued upon the statutory inquiry prescribed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. These documents have to be examined cumulatively and in their proper statutory setting. They cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are not styled as a trust deed or Memorandum of Association. For an institution established otherwise than under a formal instrument, such contemporaneous public records are undoubtedly relevant and substantive evidence of its creation, establishment and continued existence for the purposes of Rule 17A(2)(b).
12. The requirement of registration with the Charity Commissioner under clause (c) of Rule 17A(2) may be distinct from the requirement prescribed under clause (b); nonetheless, the documents forming part of the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner do not thereby lose their evidentiary value. The Schedule II application and the findings or entries recorded pursuant to the statutory inquiry may legitimately evidence the creation and establishment of the institution, even though the ultimate certificate of registration is also separately required under clause (c). What is material being the substance and probative value of the documents furnished and not merely the nomenclature assigned to them.
13. We are also unable to sustain the insistence that the assessee must furnish a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court. A scheme may be framed where the governing statute so requires or where circumstances concerning the management or administration of a particular trust warrant such intervention. Neither section 12AB nor Rule 17A makes the existence of a scheme an invariable condition for registration. The absence of such a scheme, therefore, cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for rejecting the assessee’s application.
14. The decisions of the Coordinate Benches in St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E) and St. Ignatius Church v. CIT(E) have dealt with substantially similar circumstances and have held that the absence of a formal trust deed cannot be treated as fatal where an old religious or charitable institution, established otherwise than under an instrument, furnishes cogent statutory material evidencing its establishment and continued existence. We are in respectful agreement with the principle enunciated therein. The learned CIT(E), therefore, was not justified in rejecting the application at the threshold merely for want of a separate trust deed, Memorandum of Association or scheme of administration.
15. At the same time, since the learned CIT(E) has not examined the assessee’s application on the other statutory parameters contemplated under section 12AB, and the learned DR has also sought such verification, we consider it appropriate to restore the application to his file for this limited purpose. The learned CIT(E) shall examine the objects and genuineness of the assessee’s activities and its compliance with such requirements of other laws as are material for achieving its objects, in terms of section 12AB. In carrying out this exercise, he shall not again reject the application merely for want of a formal trust deed, Memorandum of Association or a scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner or a competent Court. The Schedule II application, the registration certificate issued under the Bombay/Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, the earlier registrations granted under the Income-tax Act and all other documents furnished by the assessee shall be considered on their substantive evidentiary worth.
16. We further clarify that the provisions of sections 11 to 13 principally regulate the allowability and computation of exemption in the relevant assessment year. At the stage of registration, the learned CIT(E) may examine the objects, genuineness of activities and the statutory compliances falling within the remit of section 12AB; however, questions concerning the actual application of income or the availability of exemption in a particular year ordinarily remain within the province of assessment proceedings. Subject to verification of the statutory conditions contemplated under section 12AB, the learned CIT(E) shall grant renewal of registration to the assessee in accordance with law, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the application relates to renewal of an existing registration, the proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously.
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th September, 2026.
