St. Thomas High School Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed two appeals filed by St. Thomas High School, Goregaon, Mumbai, against separate orders dated 29 March 2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai. The first appeal, ITA No. 5620/Mum/2026, concerned rejection of renewal of registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while the second, ITA No. 5642/Mum/2026, challenged the consequential rejection of approval under Section 80G(5). Established in 1947, the school is a public charitable educational institution administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. It had enjoyed recognition as a charitable institution for several decades, including registration under Section 12A, registration under the new regime through Form 10AC effective from 23 September 2021, and approval under Section 80G. The CIT(E) rejected its renewal application because the institution could not produce a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association, despite submitting its original Charity Commissioner application, registration certificate and other supporting documents.
The assessee argued that it had never been constituted through a separate written instrument and that its internal administration was governed by Canon Law. It relied on Rule 17A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which recognises trusts and institutions established otherwise than under a written instrument. According to the assessee, the statutory registration records, longstanding recognition by educational authorities, previous income-tax registrations and uninterrupted educational activities sufficiently established its creation, existence and charitable objects. The Revenue maintained that the original instrument creating the trust was essential for examining its objects, beneficiaries and administrative framework. The Tribunal observed that the controversy was identical to the issue decided in St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, pronounced on the same date. Following that decision, the Tribunal held that Rule 17A expressly distinguishes institutions constituted under written instruments from those established otherwise, and the Commissioner cannot insist on production of a trust deed that never existed when other documents sufficiently establish the institution.
The Tribunal further noted that the school’s charitable educational activities were undisputed and that the CIT(E) had recorded no adverse finding regarding its objects, genuineness of activities, statutory compliance or continued charitable character. There was also no allegation of alteration of its objects or diversion from educational activities. Considering the institution’s longstanding registration and the documentary evidence furnished, the Tribunal held that rejection of Section 12AB renewal solely for want of a formal written trust deed was contrary to the statutory scheme. It accordingly set aside the order rejecting renewal of registration. Since the refusal of approval under Section 80G was purely consequential and unsupported by any independent adverse finding, that order was also set aside. Both appeals were allowed, with the order pronounced on 5 August 2026.
Cases Discussed:
- St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E) — ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026 (ITAT Mumbai).
- 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.).
- Tsurphu Labrang v. DIT (Exemption) — (2016) 159 ITD 848 (Delhi).
- Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (Exemption) — (2016) 72 taxmann.com 165 (Cochin).
- Shree Ram Gopal Temple Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) — (2025) 178 taxmann.com 698 (Chandigarh).
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT/ORDER
These two appeals have been preferred by the assessee, St. Thomas High School, 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. 5620/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. 5642/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 out of 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 St. Thomas High School, Goregaon, Mumbai. The school was established in the year 1947 and has since been engaged exclusively in imparting primary and secondary education, which undisputedly constitutes a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee is administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and is registered as a public trust under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now known as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is not in dispute that the assessee has enjoyed uninterrupted recognition from the educational authorities, has remained registered under section 12A of the Act for several decades, had also been granted registration under the new regime by issuance of Form No. 10AC with effect from 23.09.2021, and has consistently been enjoying approval under section 80G. Upon expiry of the earlier registration, the assessee filed the present application in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB and consequential renewal of approval under section 80G.
3. During the course of 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 by Canon Law. It was further submitted that the assessee had 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 records evidencing the creation, establishment and continued existence of the trust. The learned CIT(E), however, held that these documents could not substitute the instrument creating the trust and, according to him, in the absence of such constitutive document, it was not possible to record the satisfaction contemplated under section 12AB regarding the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities and the fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed under the Act. Proceeding 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 outset, both the learned representatives fairly submitted that the controversy involved in the present appeals is identical, both on facts as well as in law, to the controversy decided by this very Bench in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s 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 legal issue requiring adjudication is common, namely, 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 decision 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 assailed the impugned orders by submitting that the rejection of the application proceeds on a complete misinterpretation 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 1947 and has been registered as a public trust under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, since 1956. According to the learned counsel, the assessee was never constituted under a formal 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 statutory 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 for several decades, clearly constitute documents evidencing the creation and establishment of the trust within the meaning of Rule 17A(2)(b). It was further submitted that there has been no alteration either in the objects of the trust or in the nature of its educational activities and, therefore, the learned CIT(E) was not justified in denying renewal solely on the ground of non-production of a written trust deed. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed upon the decisions in 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 by the learned CIT(E) and submitted that production of the instrument creating the trust is a mandatory requirement for enabling the Commissioner to examine the charitable objects of the institution, the identity of the beneficiaries and the legal framework governing its administration. According to the Revenue, the application submitted before the Charity Commissioner and the certificate of registration 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, submitted that, in the absence of a written trust deed or Memorandum of Association, the learned CIT(E) was justified in holding that the statutory satisfaction contemplated under section 12AB could not be recorded and consequently in rejecting the applications under sections 12AB as well as 80G.
7. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. We have also carefully examined the impugned orders and the written submissions filed by both the parties. At the outset, we find that the controversy involved 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), wherein, by an order pronounced on the same date, this Tribunal had occasion to examine in considerable detail the scope of section 12AB of the Act, Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the entire body of judicial precedents governing the issue. 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. The learned Departmental Representative has also not been able to point out any distinguishing feature, either on facts or in law, which would warrant a departure from the view already taken by us in the aforesaid decision. We shall, therefore, proceed to examine the controversy by applying the ratio and reasoning recorded in the said decision to the facts of the present case.
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 particulars, identical to that which came up for our consideration in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), decided by us on the same date. In the said decision, after an elaborate examination of the scope 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 cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusing registration under section 12AB. We also held that Rule 17A itself draws a clear distinction between institutions established under a written instrument and those established otherwise than under an instrument, and consequently the Commissioner is required to examine whether the documents produced by such institution sufficiently evidence its creation or establishment instead of insisting upon production of a document which admittedly never existed.
9. Having independently examined the facts of the present case, we find ourselves in complete 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, whose existence and charitable character have remained recognised by the statutory authorities for several decades. It has continuously enjoyed registration under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and there is no dispute either regarding the charitable nature of its objects or the genuineness of its educational activities. The rejection of the application by the learned CIT(E) rests exclusively 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 decision, we find no reason to take a view different from the one already adopted by this Bench.
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. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
11. Even otherwise, we 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 compliance with any other law material for achieving its charitable purposes. There is also no finding that the assessee has altered its objects, diverted its activities or ceased to carry on educational activities. The sole basis of rejection is the non-production of a formal trust deed. For the detailed reasons recorded by us in the aforesaid decision, such an approach, in our considered opinion, is contrary to the statutory scheme embodied in section 12AB read with Rule 17A and cannot be legally sustained.
12. We also find considerable merit in the contention of the assessee that the Department itself has consistently recognised the charitable status of the institution over the past several decades by granting registration under section 12A, thereafter under section 12AB and also approval under section 80G. In the absence of any material change either in the facts or in the applicable law, the learned CIT(E) was not justified in taking a diametrically opposite view merely on account of the absence of a written trust deed, particularly
12 when the institution admittedly falls within the category of trusts established otherwise than under a written instrument.
13. Respectfully following our detailed decision rendered in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026 (St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E)), and for the reasons recorded therein, we hold that the impugned order rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration under section 12AB cannot be sustained. Consequently, the rejection of approval under section 80G, being purely consequential and not founded upon any independent adverse finding, is also liable to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore, required to be allowed.
14. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced on 5th August, 2026.
