Roman Catholic Church of the Most Sacred Heart Vs CIT(E) (ITAT Mumbai)
No Written Trust Deed Since 1971: Can a Church Lose Its 12AB Registration on Renewal?
Summary: The Roman Catholic Church of the Most Sacred Heart had existed as a registered public religious and charitable trust since 1971 and had held income-tax registration for decades. When it applied to renew registration under section 12AB, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) demanded a formal trust deed or memorandum of association. The Church explained that it was governed by Canon Law and had not been constituted through a separate written trust deed. It furnished records from its registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
The Commissioner rejected the application. The Mumbai Tribunal held that Rule 17A(2) expressly accommodates institutions established without a written instrument. Following decisions concerning similarly situated institutions, it set aside the rejection and directed grant of registration under section 12AB. That final direction is important: this appeal was allowed, rather than merely restored for another examination.
A Longstanding Institution Asked to Produce a Trust Deed
The Church had been operating since 1971 and was registered as a public religious and charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It had also held registration under the Income-tax Act and claimed exemption under section 11 over the years. Its registration under the newer regime was valid up to AY 2026–27.
The Church filed Form 10AB on 28 September 2025 seeking renewal. During scrutiny of the application, the Commissioner called for documents under Rule 17A, particularly the instrument creating the trust or a memorandum of association.
The Church responded that no separate written instrument had been executed. It said its affairs were governed by Canon Law and pointed to its public-trust registration. It furnished the application made to the Charity Commissioner and the resulting registration certificate as evidence of its establishment and existence.
The Commissioner considered those documents insufficient. In his view, they proved that the Church had been registered as a public trust, but did not constitute the foundational document creating it. He regarded a trust instrument as necessary to identify the trust’s original objects, its public character and the beneficiaries contemplated by its founders. On that basis, he rejected the renewal application on 29 March 2026.
Rule 17A Provides Two Routes
The Tribunal focused on the distinction within Rule 17A(2). Clause (a) addresses an applicant created or established under an instrument; that applicant must furnish a self-certified copy of the instrument. Clause (b) addresses an applicant created or established otherwise than under an instrument; it calls instead for a self-certified copy of a document evidencing creation or establishment.
These provisions deal with different factual situations. They cannot be read together to require every applicant to produce a written trust deed, including one that was never created under such a deed. The Tribunal therefore rejected the Commissioner’s premise that an instrument was indispensable in all cases.
The Church’s public-trust registration, earlier income-tax registrations and longstanding recognition were relevant to the evidentiary question. Its application to the Charity Commissioner and the documents generated through that process could be examined for what they showed about its establishment. Their value did not vanish merely because they were also used to obtain registration under another statute.
Charity Commissioner Records Have Evidentiary Value
The Tribunal relied on coordinate bench decisions involving institutions with comparable histories, including St. Joseph’s High School, St. Ignatius Church and St. John the Evangelist Church. In particular, it reproduced the reasoning in St. John the Evangelist Church on the relationship between different documents required by Rule 17A.
A certificate showing registration with the Charity Commissioner serves a purpose distinct from a document evidencing establishment. Yet the Schedule II application and the findings or entries in the Charity Commissioner’s statutory proceedings may themselves provide evidence of establishment. The inquiry concerns the substance of those records, rather than the title printed on them.
The cited decision also explained that the absence of a scheme framed by a court or Charity Commissioner is not, by itself, a ground for refusal: neither section 12AB nor Rule 17A makes such a scheme an invariable condition. Those principles supported the present Church’s challenge to rejection solely for want of a formal trust deed or memorandum.
Tribunal Directed Registration
The Tribunal noted that the Church’s identity, existence and public religious and charitable character had received statutory recognition over several decades. It found the issue covered by the consistent approach of coordinate benches on institutions established without a written instrument. Judicial discipline, it said, required it to follow those decisions.
The Tribunal accordingly held that the Commissioner’s rejection deserved to be set aside and directed grant of registration under section 12AB. The Church’s appeal was allowed.
There is a distinction between the operative result here and the wording of the St. John the Evangelist Church passage quoted in the order. That earlier decision had restored the application for verification of other statutory conditions. In the present case, the Tribunal’s own concluding direction was to grant registration. The quoted precedent should not obscure the relief actually ordered for this appellant.
Author’s Comments
This ruling addresses a recurring difficulty for older religious and charitable institutions: their legal existence may be well documented even though they were never established by a modern, standalone trust deed. Rule 17A(2)(b) recognises that possibility. The Commissioner must examine documents capable of evidencing establishment under that route instead of insisting on an instrument that the institution says does not exist.
The Church’s decades of public-trust and income-tax recognition provided significant context, but the central legal point is the alternative documentation route written into Rule 17A itself. In this appeal, the Tribunal went beyond setting aside the reason for refusal and expressly directed section 12AB registration.
Cases Discussed
- St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5646 and 5849/Mum/2026 (ITAT Mumbai) — Relied upon by the assessee; the Tribunal treated the issue as covered by the consistent approach of coordinate benches concerning old institutions established without a formal written trust deed.
- Basilica of Our Lady of The Mount v. Exemption Ward 1(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 5551/Mum/2026 (ITAT Mumbai) — Relied upon by the assessee among the coordinate-bench orders concerning the same issue.
- Saint Ignatius Church v. CIT (Exemptions), ITA No. 6052/Mum/2026 (ITAT Mumbai) — Relied upon by the assessee; also referred to in the reproduced reasoning of St. John the Evangelist Church as dealing with substantially similar circumstances.
- St. John the Evangelist Church v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), ITA No. 5828/Mum/2026 (ITAT Mumbai) — Followed; its reasoning on Rule 17A(2), evidentiary value of Charity Commissioner records and absence of a mandatory formal trust deed was reproduced extensively by the Tribunal.
- Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, [1992] 193 ITR 321 (Supreme Court) — Invoked by the assessee in its grounds on the rule of consistency arising from the Department’s historical recognition of its registration.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 29th March 2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [in short Ld. CIT(E)], rejecting an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act (the Act).
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal before the Tribunal:
1.] The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Application for Registration under Section 12AB of the Act solely on the ground that the Appellant failed to furnish the instrument of Trust/MOA as it amounts to non-compliance and non-fulfilment of mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 12AB (1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2.] The learned CIT(E) erred in observing that the application in Schedule II and subsequent registration Certificate issued by the Charity Commissioner do not constitute documents “evidencing the creation of the trust” as prescribed under Rule 17A(2)(b) of Income tax Rules, 1962 by completely overlooking the fact that the appellant is a religious and charitable trust duly registered with the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 based on valid declaration of trust since the year 1971 and exists as a public charitable trust.
3.] The learned CIT(E) failed to consider and appreciate the Certificate of Registration granted by the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 which is a valid document that establishes the existence of the Appellant Trust and is covered by the provisions of Rule 17A(A)(2)(b) – any document evidencing the creation or establishment of the trust.
4.] The learned CIT(E) erred in observing that the Canon Law does not have any direct application for management and administrations of charitable trusts.
5.] The learned CIT(E) erred in relying upon the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 as the same are clearly not applicable in the case of the Appellant Trust – as it is undisputedly a public charitable trust.
6.] The learned CIT(E) erred in summarily rejecting the renewal application without considering the historical context and past records and evidence like audit reports and Return of Income filed over the past several decades that confirm the trust’s long-standing charitable existence.
7.] The CIT(E) failed to appreciate that there has been no change in the objects of the Appellant, the nature of its activities, or the applicable law, the learned CIT(E) is bound by the “Rule of Consistency” as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT. The CIT (E) cannot arbitrarily change its stand to deny a status it has historically recognized and accepted.
8.] The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the Department has granted/renewed registration under Section 12A/12AA/12AB of the Act for several decades in the past based on the same set of documents furnished on earlier occasions.
9.] The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that his power under section 12AB of the Act is limited to verifying the genuineness of the activities of the charitable nature of object which in the case of the Appellant has not been doubted and therefore the order passed by the CIT(E) on the alleged ground based on format of the document, rather than the nature of the activities is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
10.] The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the rejection Order passed by him certainly affects the day-to-day management and functioning of the Appellant Trust though he may not have intended so.
3. The brief relevant facts of the case are that, the assessee, a charitable trust, carrying out its operations from year 1971 and having registration as a public trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee was having registration u/s 12AB for very long time, an consistently claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act, being a registered institution. Meanwhile, the registration in the new regime, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, has also been granted for specified term of five years up to AY 2026-27. After that, for renewal thereof assessee filed another application in form 10AB has been filed on 28-09-2025.
4. The ld CIT(E), while proceeding renewal application, issued notice to furnish documents to substantiate its application for renewal of registration in terms of Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 along with copy of instrument of trust/Memorandum of Association (MoA), which constitutes the foundational document governing the creation or establishment of the Trust/institution.
5. In response to that, Assessee stated that its Trust is governed by Canon Law and does not require execution of formal written trust deed, further stated that it is registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, on the basis of application made for this purpose in the statutorily prescribed Form and provided certificate of registration granted by the Charity Commissioner.
6. The Ld. CIT(E) observed that that copy of Form of Application for registration of Public Trust, is in the nature of document evidencing the registration of public trust; and not the document evidencing creation of trust.
7. The Ld. CIT(E) also observed that the instrument of Trust is the sole source from which the trust derives its legal existence. It is the primary authority which can be relied upon to ascertain the charitable nature of objects for which the Trust is established, and also to determine the public nature of the Trust, having regard to the original intention of the authors of the Trust, and the class of beneficiaries defined therein. Therefore, held that Assessee failed to comply with requirement of Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and rejected the application.
8. Aggrieved by the rejection of application for renewal of regular registration under Section 12AB, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, and submitted that the CIT (E) made a reference to Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which, inter alia, mandates that an application seeking registration or renewal thereof shall be accompanied by certain prescribed documents, including a self-certified copy of such instrument creating or establishing the institution. Per CIT (E), assessee failed to comply with statutory provisions by not furnishing the instrument of creation of trust/ memorandum of association for seeking renewal of registration under Section 12AB. whereas, the requirement of instrument of trust/MOA is not optional but a mandatory condition for seeking renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The instrument of trust is the sole source from which the trust derives its legal existence.
9. Before, us, the Assessee contended that it is governed by Canon law and not required to execute a formal trust deed, Canon Law is the internal body of laws, regulations, and norms ordained by ecclesiastical authority to govern the Christian Church, most notably the Roman Catholic Church. It manages church administration, liturgy, and the obligation of practitioners, acting as a bridge between theology and practical functionality to guide church operations. The first canon in the Code of Canon Law itself makes it evident that these laws are primarily applicable to matters connected with church administrations. Therefore, it is not constituted under a separate written trust deed.
10. The Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has fundamentally misdirected himself in law by holding that existence of formal written trust deed as an indispensable condition for grant of registration under Section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, by completely overlooked the statutory distinction recognized under Rule 17A(2) between trusts created under a written instrument and those established otherwise than by such an instrument.
11. The AR of the Assessee argued that, being a public charitable trust, continuously filing its return of income, claiming the exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act for around 5 decades, as registered institution u/s 12A and department allowed exemptions in all those years. This fact itself proved existence of creation of institution. Nonetheless, the documents forming part of the proceeding before the Charity Commissioner do not thereby lose their evidentiary value.
12. Moreover, further asserted that impugned rejection order is based on an erroneous interpretation of the statutory provisions and settled judicial precedents governing the scope of inquiry before grant of renewal or registration under Section 12AB of the Act.
13. The Rule 17A(2)(b) of the Act contemplates that the requirement for applicants pertains to institution, who does not have an instrument of trust, constitution, or written document for its existence. While passing of an order, Ld. CIT(E) miss construed the rule 17A(2)(b) and incorrectly applied. This sub clause (b) of rule 17A(2) brought in law for applicants like Assessee.
14. The assesses’ reliance upon the orders of the coordinate bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal:
1. St. Joseph’s High School versus CIT (E), ITA No. 5646 and 5849/MUM/2026
2. Basilica of Our Lady of The Mount versus Exemption Ward 1 (1, Mumbai), ITA No. 5551/MUM/2026
3. Saint Ignatius Church versus CIT (Exemptions), ITA No. 6052/MUM/2026
4. Saint John the Evangelist Church versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), ITA No. 5828/MUM/2026. and requested to allow the appeal.
15. Per contra, Ld. CIT, DR relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(E).
16. We have considered the rival submissions, perused material available on record, and observed that it is an undisputed fact that Assessee has been registered as a public religious and charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. It was also registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act after the inception of 1971, and thereafter granted registration under the substituted regime in Form 10SE. Thus, identity, existence, and public religious and charitable character of the Assessee have been received statutory recognition for several decades. The requirement in terms of rule 17A(2)(b) does not mandate such document to prove the existence.
17. The Tribunal in the various orders, in cases having identical facts relating to their creation under the common canon law, While interpreting Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, recognizes that there are two distinct modes in which a trust or institution may have been created or established. The clause (a) of IT Rule 17A(2) 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 before the Ld.CIT (E) for obtaining fresh oblique renewal of registration, and 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. These two clauses cater to two different factual situations and cannot be construed as a cumulative requirement.
18. The Co-ordinate Bench, ITAT, Mumbai, in case of St John the Evangelist Church versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), ITA No. 5828/MUM/2026 held that :
”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.”
19. In view of the matter, and in the light of consistent stand taken by the coordinate benches of Tribunal, we find that issue in the instant case, is covered by the finding of aforementioned ITAT orders of the Tribunal, for having identical facts and basis for rejection of the applications. Since, judicial discipline also requires that a bench of co-equal strength to follow the decisions rendered by coordinate benches.
20. In the present case, we respectfully followed the co-ordinate bench and hold that the rejection of the renewal application of the Assessee, by the CIT (E), deserves to be set aside with a direction to grant registration under Section 12AB of the Act, Consequently, Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2026.
