Resource & Support Centre for Development Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai ITAT dealt with two connected appeals of Resource & Support Centre for Development concerning renewal of registration under section 12AB and renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed Form No.10AB on 30.09.2025 seeking renewal under section 12AB. The CIT(E) considered the application incomplete and issued a notice dated 07.01.2026 seeking documents required under Rule 17A(2). According to the CIT(E), there was no complete compliance, preventing him from satisfying himself regarding the objects of the trust, genuineness of its activities and compliance with applicable laws. The section 12AB application was consequently rejected.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the order had been passed without properly appreciating the material on record and without granting an effective opportunity to explain or furnish further particulars. It stated that it had continuously carried on charitable activities and was willing to furnish whatever information or documents were necessary. The Revenue relied upon the CIT(E)’s findings. The Tribunal observed that consideration of an application for registration or renewal under section 12AB requires examination of the trust’s objects, genuineness of its activities and other statutory requirements. Such an exercise necessarily requires due consideration of the material placed on record and an effective opportunity to the applicant to furnish explanations or further particulars.
The ITAT found that although the CIT(E)’s order substantially proceeded on alleged non-compliance with the notice, it did not discuss the nature of the documents allegedly not furnished or explain why the material already available was insufficient to examine the assessee’s eligibility. The Tribunal therefore set aside the order and restored the section 12AB application to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to consider all documents and explanations furnished by the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting due and effective opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and left all issues open. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully and furnish the documents, records and explanations called for by the CIT(E).
As regards section 80G, the CIT(E) had rejected the renewal application solely because the assessee’s section 12AB renewal had already been rejected, treating registration under section 12AB as an essential condition under section 80G(5). No independent examination of the section 80G claim had been undertaken. Since the Tribunal restored the section 12AB issue for fresh adjudication, it held that the consequential rejection under section 80G could not independently survive. That order was also set aside and the section 80G application was restored to the CIT(E), to be reconsidered after adjudication of the section 12AB application, with a speaking order and an effective opportunity of hearing.
Accordingly, both impugned orders were set aside and both matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Tribunal again refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of either claim. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
These two appeals by the assessee arise out of separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, both relating to the applications filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB and renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since both the appeals arise from common facts and the rejection of the application under section 80G is purely consequential to the rejection of registration under section 12AB, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
ITA No.5732/Mum/2026 – Renewal of Registration under Section 12AB
2. The brief facts borne out from the impugned order are that the assessee had filed an application in Form No.10AB on 30.09.2025 seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) observed that the application was not complete and that all the documents required under Rule 17A(2) had not been furnished. Accordingly, a notice dated 07.01.2026 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite details. According to the learned CIT(E), there was no complete compliance with the said notice and, therefore, he was unable to satisfy himself regarding the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and compliance with other applicable laws. On this premise alone, the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB came to be rejected.
3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order has been passed without properly appreciating the material available on record and without granting an effective opportunity to explain or furnish such further particulars as may have been required. It was submitted that the assessee has all along been carrying on its charitable activities and was willing to furnish any information or documents that may be considered necessary for examining its claim on merits. It was, therefore, pleaded that the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity of hearing. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The power conferred upon the learned CIT(E) while considering an application for registration or renewal under section 12AB necessarily requires him to examine the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and such other statutory requirements as are contemplated under the Act. Such an exercise necessarily presupposes due consideration of the material placed on record as well as an effective opportunity to the applicant to explain or furnish any further particulars that may be required for arriving at a proper satisfaction. In the present case, the impugned order proceeds substantially on the premise that the assessee had not complied with all the requirements contained in the notice issued by the learned CIT(E). However, no discussion has been made with regard to the nature of the documents allegedly not furnished or as to why the material available on record was insufficient for examining the assessee’s eligibility. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(E) with a direction to examine the assessee’s application afresh, consider all documents and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after granting due and effective opportunity of hearing. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s claim and all issues are left open for fresh consideration.
5. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the fresh proceedings and furnish all such documents, records and explanations as may be called for by the learned CIT(E), who shall thereafter decide the application independently and strictly in accordance with law. Subject to these observations, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.5732/Mum/2026 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.5731/Mum/2026 – Renewal of Approval under Section 80G
6. The second appeal relates to the rejection of the assessee’s application for renewal of approval under section 80G of the Act. From the impugned order, it is evident that the learned CIT(E) has rejected the application solely on the ground that the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had already been rejected and, therefore, one of the essential conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) was not fulfilled. No independent examination of the assessee’s claim under section 80G has been undertaken.
7. Since we have already restored the issue relating to renewal of registration under section 12AB to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, the consequential rejection of approval under section 80G also cannot survive independently. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed under section 80G and restore this issue as well to the file of the learned CIT(E), who shall reconsider the assessee’s application afresh after adjudicating the application under section 12AB and thereafter decide the claim for renewal of approval under section 80G in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order after granting due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
8. In the result, both the impugned orders are set aside and the respective matters are restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all requisite documents and details as may be called for. Since we have restored the matters for fresh consideration, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 5th August, 2026.
