Rotary Club of Bombay Pier Charities Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai ITAT considered two connected appeals by Rotary Club of Bombay Pier Charities Trust against separate orders dated 01.03.2026 passed by CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai, rejecting renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G(5). The appeals were delayed by seven days, which the Tribunal condoned after accepting the explanation that the delay resulted from the long leave of the staff member handling the matter and the bona fide impression that the appeals had already been filed. Taking up the section 12AB matter first, the Tribunal noted that the Trust had filed Form No.10AB on 29.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii). CIT(E) issued notices seeking documents under Rule 17A(2) but subsequently rejected the application on the ground that it was incomplete and that the Trust had failed to comply fully with the notices.
The Trust contended that the required material had actually been furnished physically before CIT(E), including its trust deed, registration certificates, FCRA registration, financial statements, ITR acknowledgements and other supporting documents. It also submitted that it had been carrying on charitable activities for more than three decades and had been granted registration in earlier years. The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not identify which particular documents had remained unfiled or what specific compliance had not been made. It merely contained a general observation of non-compliance without dealing with the documents claimed to have been furnished. The ITAT held that such a cryptic rejection could not be sustained and emphasised that while considering registration under section 12AB, the authority must examine the objects of the trust and genuineness of its activities after providing a reasonable and effective opportunity to the applicant.
Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 01.03.2026 rejecting renewal under section 12AB and restored the matter to CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing. The Trust was directed to furnish all requisite documents called for by CIT(E) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Since rejection of approval under section 80G in the connected appeal was consequential to rejection of section 12AB registration, the Tribunal also set aside the section 80G rejection and restored that matter to CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Both appeals were thus allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”], both dated 01.03.2026 passed in Form No.10AD. One order pertains to rejection of application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the other pertains to rejection of approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. Since common facts are involved and both appeals arise from connected proceedings, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
2. Originally, these appeals were listed on applications moved by the assessee seeking early hearing. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that complete replies along with supporting documents had in fact been filed manually before the office of the learned CIT(Exemption), copies whereof have also been placed before us in the paper book filed before the Tribunal. Considering the nature of controversy involved, the grounds raised in the appeals and the submissions advanced by the learned AR during the course of hearing, and further since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the applications for early hearing were acceded to. With the consent of both the litigating parties, the appeals themselves were taken up for hearing in open Court today and heard on merits.
3. It is noticed that there is a delay of 7 days in filing both the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation applications explaining the reasons for delay. The assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to long leave of the staff member handling the matter and the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the appeals had already been filed within the prescribed time. It has further been stated that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and if the delay is not condoned, irreparable prejudice would be caused to the assessee. Having considered the contents of the condonation applications and keeping in view the settled principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, the delay of 7 days in filing both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.
4. We shall first take up ITA No. 5623/Mum/2026 relating to rejection of renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed application in Form No.10AB on 29.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E), Mumbai issued notices dated 09.01.2026 and 23.01.2026 calling upon the assessee to furnish documents/details as required under Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thereafter, the learned CIT(E) passed order dated 01.03.2026 in Form No.10AD rejecting the application for renewal of registration on the ground that the application was incomplete and the assessee had not complied with all the terms of notices issued during the course of proceedings.
6. The relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced verbatim as under:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Exemption), Mumbai, erred in:
a. Rejecting the application of the Appellant trust u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) on the ground that the renewal application filed in Form 10AB on 29.09.2025 was not complete and the appellant had not complied to the notices issued.
The appellant submits that the appellant had filed the details and documents required by the said CIT(E) vide his notice dated 09/01/2026 which have not been considered by the said CIT(E) before rejecting the application of the appellant.
The Appellants’ had submitted the following at the time of the hearing:
i) Registration Certificate from the charity Commissioner
ii) Registration Cert granted for earlier years
iii) Note on Nature of Activities
iv) Registration Certificate from FCRA
v) Trust Deed
vi) E mail id and mobile Number of all trustee’s and along with KYC documents.
vii) Ack of Renewal application
viii) Financial Statements for the years 2022-23 to 2024-25 and expenditure incurred towards object of the Trust
ix) Copy of ITR Ack for last 3 yrs
x) 3 yrs annual Accounts
xi) Darpan registration
xii) Details of Form 10AB
b. Denying registration by merely stating “on grounds of non-compliance with all the terms of notices issued to the applicant,
c. Ignoring the evidence on record, as all documents requested were duly submitted.
d. Failing to consider the Appellants’ longstanding not for profit /charitable activities, in which it has never distributed profit spanning over 33 years, in which the registration has always been granted.
e. Not providing specific reasons for rejection but giving only vague observations without specifying the exact nature of the alleged non-compliance.
f. Denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard prior or a Show Cause Notice to rejecting the application.
g. Overlooking details already available on record and rejecting the application mechanically, without proper application of mind.
h. The appellant submits that the order of the said CIT(E) in rejecting the application filed by the appellant in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) is improper, unwarranted and unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The appellant further submits that the said CIT(E) ought to have granted the registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or adduce any additional ground or grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.
2. The appellant humbly prays to:
a. Quash the order passed in Form 10AD rejecting the application for registration; and
b. Direct the restoration/renewal of registration under Section12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 1st April 2026.
7. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that complete details along with supporting documents were in fact furnished before the office of the learned CIT(E) physically. It was submitted that the assessee trust has been carrying on charitable activities for more than three decades and registration had been granted in earlier years also. The learned AR submitted that the rejection has been made merely on general observations of non-compliance without specifying as to which particular document or compliance was lacking. It was further contended that the impugned order is non-speaking and passed without proper appreciation of material placed on record.
8. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the learned CIT(E). However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned DR raised no objection if the matters were restored back to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee had filed application in Form No.10AB on 29.09.2025 seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) rejected the application primarily on the ground that all documents/details sought in notices dated 09.01.2026 and 23.01.2026 were not furnished by the assessee. However, from the grounds of appeal as well as submissions made before us, it emerges that the assessee claims to have furnished various documents including trust deed, registration certificate, FCRA registration, financial statements, ITR acknowledgements and other relevant details before the learned CIT(E).
10. We further note that the impugned order does not specify which exact documents remained unfiled or which particular compliance was not made by the assessee. The order merely contains a general observation regarding non-compliance. In our considered view, such a cryptic rejection without specifically dealing with the documents allegedly furnished by the assessee cannot be sustained.
11. It is a settled principle of law that while examining an application for registration under section 12AB of the Act, the authority is required to examine the objects of the trust and genuineness of activities after granting reasonable and effective opportunity to the applicant. The impugned order does not demonstrate any examination of the objects or activities of the assessee trust. Rather, the application has been rejected solely on generalized observations regarding non-compliance.
12. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E) rejecting renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act and restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all requisite details/documents as may be called for by the learned CIT(E) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
13. Since the rejection of approval under section 80G in ITA No.5650/Mum/2026 is consequential to rejection of registration under section 12AB of the Act, the learned AR submitted that once the issue relating to section 12AB registration is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(E), the issue relating to approval under section 80G also requires reconsideration. We find merit in the said contention. Since we have already restored the issue relating to registration under section 12AB to the file of the learned CIT(E), the impugned order dated 01.03.2026 rejecting approval under section 80G is also set aside and restored back to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
14. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2026.
