School of St. John the Evangelist Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench “D”, allowed two appeals filed by School of St. John the Evangelist, holding that renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not be refused solely because an established public charitable educational institution did not possess a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association. The Tribunal also set aside the consequential rejection of approval under Section 80G(5). The Bench comprising Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member, held that the statutory framework, particularly Rule 17A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, recognises institutions created or established otherwise than under a written instrument. Where documentary evidence establishes the institution’s creation, continued existence and charitable activities, the absence of a separate written trust deed cannot, by itself, justify rejection. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, to grant renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G in accordance with law.
The assessee was a public charitable educational institution administering School of St. John the Evangelist at Marol, Andheri East, Mumbai. Established as a primary school in 1955, it had continuously engaged in imparting education, an activity recognised as a charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. The institution was established and administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and registered as a public trust under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, subsequently known as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It had enjoyed registration under Section 12A for several decades, received registration under the revised statutory regime through Form No. 10AC and also held approval under Section 80G. Upon expiry of the earlier registration period, the institution filed Form No. 10AB seeking renewal under Section 12AB and the corresponding approval under Section 80G.
During the renewal proceedings, the CIT(E) required the institution to furnish a self-certified copy of the instrument of trust or Memorandum of Association under Rule 17A. The assessee explained that it had never been constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association. Being a Catholic missionary educational institution, its internal administration was governed by Canon Law. To substantiate its legal existence and charitable character, it furnished the original statutory application submitted to the Charity Commissioner, the certificate of registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and other contemporaneous documentary records. However, the CIT(E) held that those documents merely evidenced statutory registration and could not replace the constitutive instrument creating the trust. On that basis, he concluded that the charitable objects, genuineness of activities and statutory compliance could not be satisfactorily verified and rejected renewal under Section 12AB by order dated 29 March 2026. The application for Section 80G approval was consequently rejected by a separate order of the same date.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the CIT(E) had misinterpreted Section 12AB read with Rule 17A(2)(b). The rule expressly accommodates trusts and institutions created or established otherwise than under an instrument. The assessee submitted that, because no separate trust deed had ever existed, its Charity Commissioner records, registration certificate, educational recognition and long-standing registrations under Sections 12A and 12AB were the relevant documentary evidence of its creation and establishment. It further emphasised that neither its charitable objects nor its educational activities had changed and that its status as an established public charitable educational institution had been accepted by the Department for decades.
The assessee relied upon several authorities, including Laxminarayan Maharaj v. CIT, Pr. CIT (Exemptions) v. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid, CIT v. Hazrat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust, Ananda Social & Educational Trust v. CIT, Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT (Exemptions), Tsurphu Labrang v. DIT (Exemption), Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (Exemption) and Shree Ram Gopal Temple Trust v. CIT (Exemptions). These authorities were cited in support of the statutory recognition of charitable institutions established without a formal instrument, the evidentiary value of their registration records, and the proper scope of inquiry when granting or renewing charitable registration. The Revenue maintained that a written constitutive document was necessary to determine the trust’s objects and governance arrangements and defended the refusal of registration and approval.
The Tribunal observed that the controversy was materially identical to that already decided by the same Bench in St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, and St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026, both pronounced on 5 August 2026. In those cases, the Tribunal had considered the scope of Section 12AB, Rule 17A and the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, together with the applicable judicial precedents. The Bench had held that where an institution was demonstrably established otherwise than under a written instrument, non-production of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association did not automatically justify denial of registration.
Applying the earlier decisions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had been established in 1955, was registered under the public trust legislation and had continuously enjoyed income-tax registration and Section 80G approval. The charitable nature of its educational objects and the genuineness of its activities were not disputed. Nor had the CIT(E) identified any violation of a law material to achieving its charitable purposes. The rejection rested exclusively upon the absence of a separate formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association. The Bench therefore concluded that the CIT(E) had adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of the documentary requirements prescribed by Rule 17A.
The Tribunal specifically adopted and incorporated by reference the reasoning in its consolidated order in St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E). It reiterated that the inquiry under Section 12AB must address the statutory requirements applicable to a charitable institution and cannot disregard an alternative documentary route expressly contemplated by the Rules. The assessee had furnished cogent documentary evidence of its creation, establishment and continued existence as a public charitable trust. The absence of a document that had never existed could not negate the legal effect of those records, particularly when the institution’s charitable objects and activities remained undisputed.
The Tribunal also emphasised the principle of judicial consistency. The assessee had enjoyed uninterrupted recognition under the Income-tax Act for several decades and continued to carry on the same educational activities without any material alteration in its objects. The Department had identified no distinguishing factual or legal circumstances justifying a different conclusion from the coordinate-Bench rulings involving similarly placed charitable educational institutions. Consequently, the Bench found that rejection of registration solely on the basis of the missing formal instrument was legally unsustainable.
As regards Section 80G, the Tribunal noted that the refusal of approval was purely consequential to the rejection under Section 12AB. The CIT(E) had not independently identified any failure to satisfy the statutory conditions governing Section 80G approval. Once the sole basis for denying renewal of registration was found unsustainable, the corresponding rejection of Section 80G approval could not survive. The Tribunal therefore set aside both orders dated 29 March 2026 and directed the CIT(E) to grant renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. Both appeals were allowed.
The ruling confirms that a long-established charitable institution cannot be denied registration merely for failing to furnish a separate written trust deed where the law recognises trusts established otherwise than under an instrument and sufficient alternative documentation exists. It also reinforces that renewal proceedings must examine the actual statutory requirements, charitable objects, genuineness of activities and material legal compliance, rather than treating the absence of a particular document as an automatic ground for refusal. The decision is especially relevant to older educational institutions, religiously administered schools and public charitable organisations whose establishment is evidenced through statutory registration records rather than standalone trust instruments.
Cases Discussed
1. Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT (Exemptions) — (2026) 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bombay High Court). Relied upon through coordinate-Bench reasoning. The judgment was cited on the scope of charitable registration requirements and the principle that the statutory conditions for registration or renewal should not be enlarged by importing requirements not prescribed by law.
2. St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E) — ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026; 05/08/2026 (ITAT Mumbai). Directly followed; reasoning incorporated by reference. The coordinate Bench held that absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association could not alone defeat Section 12AB registration when the institution had been established otherwise than under a written instrument and had furnished sufficient documentary evidence.
3. St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E) — ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026; 05/08/2026 (ITAT Mumbai). Directly followed. The Tribunal treated the controversy as materially identical and applied the reasoning adopted in the coordinate-Bench decision concerning charitable educational institutions lacking a separate written constitutive instrument.
4. Shree Ram Gopal Temple Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) — (2025) 178 taxmann.com 698 (ITAT Chandigarh). Cited by the assessee. Relied upon in support of the contention that documentary evidence other than a formal trust deed may be relevant in charitable registration proceedings.
5. Ananda Social & Educational Trust v. CIT — (2020) 426 ITR 340 (Supreme Court). Relied upon. The decision was cited regarding the nature and scope of the statutory inquiry into objects and genuineness of activities when considering charitable registration.
6. Pr. CIT (Exemptions) v. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid — (2018) 402 ITR 29 (Gujarat High Court). Cited by the assessee. Relied upon in relation to documentary evidence establishing the creation and existence of a religious or charitable trust.
7. Tsurphu Labrang v. DIT (Exemption) — (2016) 159 ITD 848 (ITAT Delhi). Cited by the assessee. Referred to in support of the treatment of trusts or institutions established otherwise than under a written instrument.
8. Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (Exemption) — (2016) 72 taxmann.com 165 (ITAT Cochin). Cited by the assessee. Relied upon on issues concerning charitable or religious institutions and the requirements for registration.
9. CIT v. Hazrat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust — (2002) 256 ITR 193 (Gujarat High Court). Cited by the assessee. Referred to regarding the evidentiary significance of registration and documents establishing the existence of a public trust.
10. Laxminarayan Maharaj v. CIT — (1984) 150 ITR 465 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). Cited by the assessee. Relied upon in support of the argument that a trust may be established and recognised without necessarily having a separate written constitutive instrument.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee, School of St. John the Evangelist, against two separate orders both dated 29.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”]. The first appeal in ITA No. 5630/Mum/2026 arises from the order passed under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), whereby the learned CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application filed in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of its registration under section 12AB of the Act. The second appeal in ITA No. 5822/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 arise from common facts and involve interconnected issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. The assessee is a public charitable educational institution administering School of St. John the Evangelist, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The institution was established as a primary school in the year 1955 and has since been engaged in imparting education, which undisputedly constitutes a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. The school is established and administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and stands registered as a public trust under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950). It is an admitted position that the assessee has remained continuously recognised by the educational authorities, has enjoyed registration under section 12A of the Act for several decades, was granted registration under the new regime by issuance of Form No. 10AC and has also been enjoying approval under section 80G. Upon the expiry of the earlier registration period, the assessee filed the present applications in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB and the consequential approval under section 80G.
3. During the course of the proceedings, the learned CIT(E) required the assessee to furnish, inter alia, a self-certified copy of the instrument of trust or Memorandum of Association as contemplated under Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In response, the assessee explained that it had never been constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association and that, being a Catholic missionary educational institution, its internal administration was governed in accordance with Canon Law. The assessee further furnished the statutory application submitted before the Charity Commissioner at the time of registration under the Bombay Public Trusts Act together with the certificate of registration and other contemporaneous documents evidencing the creation, establishment and continued existence of the trust. The learned CIT(E), however, held that such documents merely evidenced registration of the trust and could not substitute the instrument creating or establishing the trust. According to him, in the absence of such constitutive document, it was not possible to record the satisfaction contemplated under section 12AB regarding the charitable objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and compliance with the statutory requirements prescribed under the Act. On the aforesaid reasoning, he rejected the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB and, as a necessary consequence thereof, also rejected the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the very outset, both the learned representatives fairly submitted that the controversy arising in the present appeals is identical, both on facts and in law, to that decided by this very Bench in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.), as also in ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026, St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E.), pronounced on the same date. It was submitted that the impugned orders have been passed on identical reasoning, the statutory provisions involved are the same, the written submissions substantially overlap and the principal legal issue requiring adjudication is whether renewal of registration under section 12AB can be denied solely on the ground that the assessee, though admittedly registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and continuously recognised under the Income-tax Act for several decades, was not constituted under a formal written trust deed. We shall, therefore, examine the controversy in the light of the findings recorded by us in the aforesaid decisions while independently considering the facts of the present case.
5. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions advanced before the learned CIT(E) and submitted that the rejection of the application proceeds on an erroneous interpretation of section 12AB of the Act read with Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It was submitted that the assessee has been in existence since the year 1955 and has throughout been carrying on the charitable activity of imparting education. According to the learned counsel, the assessee was never constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association and, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of Rule 17A(2)(b), which expressly recognises institutions created or established otherwise than under an instrument. It was contended that the application submitted before the Charity Commissioner, the registration certificate issued under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the continued recognition granted by the educational authorities, the registration under section 12A, the subsequent registration under section 12AB vide Form No. 10AC and the approval under section 80G, together with the uninterrupted acceptance of the assessee’s charitable status by the Department over several decades, constitute sufficient documentary evidence of the creation and establishment of the trust within the meaning of Rule 17A(2)(b). It was further submitted that there has been no change either in the charitable objects of the institution or in the nature of its educational activities and, therefore, the learned CIT(E) was not justified in refusing renewal solely on account of the non-production of a written trust deed. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed upon Laxminarayan Maharaj v. CIT [(1984) 150 ITR 465 (MP)], Pr. CIT (Exemptions) v. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid [(2018) 402 ITR 29 (Guj.)], CIT v. Hazrat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust [(2002) 256 ITR 193 (Guj.)], Ananda Social & Educational Trust v. CIT [(2020) 426 ITR 340 (SC)], Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT (Exemptions) [(2026) 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bom.)], as well as the decisions of the Tribunal in Tsurphu Labrang v. DIT (Exemption) [(2016) 159 ITD 848 (Delhi-Trib.)], Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (Exemption) [(2016) 72 taxmann.com 165 (Cochin-Trib.)] and Shree Ram Gopal Temple Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) [(2025) 178 taxmann.com 698 (Chandigarh-Trib.)].
6. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the reasoning recorded in the impugned orders and submitted that production of the instrument creating the trust is an essential requirement for enabling the Commissioner to examine the charitable objects of the institution, the framework governing its administration and the fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed under section 12AB. According to the Revenue, the application submitted before the Charity Commissioner and the registration certificate issued under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act merely recognise the existence of the trust and cannot substitute the constitutive document creating the trust. It was, therefore, contended that, in the absence of a written trust deed or Memorandum of Association, the learned CIT(E) was justified in declining renewal of registration under section 12AB and consequently refusing approval under section 80G.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned orders and examined the material placed before us. At the outset, we find that the controversy arising in the present appeals is identical, both on facts and in law, to that decided by this very Bench in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.), as also in ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026, St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E.), both pronounced on the same date. Having independently examined the facts of the present case, we find that the reasoning adopted by the learned CIT(E), the statutory provisions involved, the documentary evidence produced by the assessee and the legal submissions advanced before us are substantially identical to those considered in the aforesaid decisions. The learned Departmental Representative has also not been able to point out any distinguishing feature, either on facts or in law, warranting a departure from the view already taken by us. We shall, therefore, apply the ratio and reasoning recorded in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present appeals.
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned orders and examined the material placed before us. Upon such consideration, we find that the controversy involved in the present appeals is, in all material respects, identical to that which came up for consideration before this very Bench in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.), and thereafter in ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026, St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E.), both pronounced on the same date. In the aforesaid decisions, after an elaborate examination of the scope and ambit of section 12AB of the Act, Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the judicial precedents governing the field, we held that where a charitable institution has admittedly been established otherwise than under a written instrument, the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusing registration under section 12AB.
9. Having independently examined the facts of the present case, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. The assessee before us is likewise a long-established public charitable educational institution, registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and continuously recognised by the Income-tax Department under sections 12A and thereafter 12AB of the Act. It has also been enjoying approval under section 80G over the years. There is no dispute regarding the charitable nature of its objects, the genuineness of its educational activities or its compliance with any law material for achieving its charitable purposes. The rejection of the application rests solely upon the absence of a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association. The factual matrix, the statutory provisions involved and the legal submissions advanced before us being substantially identical to those considered in the aforesaid decisions, we find no justification to take a different view.
10. We have already, in our consolidated order of even date passed in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.), undertaken an elaborate examination of the scope and ambit of section 12AB of the Act, Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the judicial precedents governing the controversy, including the decisions in Laxminarayan Maharaj v. CIT (supra), Ananda Social & Educational Trust v. CIT (supra), Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT (Exemptions) (supra), Pr. CIT (Exemptions) v. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid (supra), CIT v. Hazrat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust (supra) and the other authorities referred to therein. Since the controversy involved in the present appeals is identical both on facts and in law, and no distinguishing feature has been brought to our notice by the Revenue warranting a different view, the detailed discussion, reasoning and conclusions recorded in the aforesaid order are incorporated herein by reference and shall form an integral part of the present order. Applying the ratio laid down therein mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present case, we hold that the learned CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB merely on account of the absence of a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association, when the assessee had otherwise produced cogent documentary evidence evidencing its creation, establishment and continued existence as a public charitable trust.
11. We also find that the learned CIT(E) has not recorded any adverse finding regarding the charitable objects of the assessee, the genuineness of its activities or the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under section 12AB of the Act. There is equally no finding that the assessee has altered its objects, ceased to carry on educational activities or violated any statutory requirement material for achieving its charitable purposes. In these circumstances, and for the detailed reasons recorded in our aforesaid decisions, the rejection of the assessee’s application solely on account of the absence of a formal trust deed cannot be legally sustained.
12. We further find that the assessee has enjoyed uninterrupted recognition under the Income-tax Act for several decades and has continued to carry on the same charitable activity of imparting education without any material change in its objects or activities. In the absence of any distinguishing factual or legal circumstance, judicial consistency also demands that a similar view be adopted in the present appeals.
13. Accordingly, respectfully following our detailed decisions rendered in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026 (St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.)) and ITA Nos. 5620/Mum/2026 and 5642/Mum/2026 (St. Thomas High School v. CIT(E.)), both pronounced on the same date, we set aside the impugned order rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act and direct the learned CIT(E) to grant renewal of registration in accordance with law. Since the rejection of approval under section 80G is purely consequential and no independent adverse finding has been recorded regarding the fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed thereunder, the said order is also set aside with a direction to grant approval under section 80G. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed.
14. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced on 5th August, 2026.
