Suvidya Prasarak Sangh Vs CIT(Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai)
“You Have Not Furnished All Documents” Is Not Enough: ITAT Restores Trust’s Section 12AB Renewal Application
Summary: A trust applying for renewal of registration under section 12AB must furnish the documents and information required for examination of its application. But if the CIT(E) rejects the application for incomplete compliance, the rejection order should identify what remained to be furnished. The Mumbai ITAT addressed this point in Suvidya Prasarak Sangh v. CIT(E), setting aside an order that said the applicant had failed to comply with “all terms” of a notice without specifying the outstanding items.
The Tribunal has not granted registration to the Sangh. It has restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the missing documents or details, if any, are specifically communicated and the applicant is given a reasonable opportunity to provide them.
Application Filed, Documents Called For
Suvidya Prasarak Sangh filed Form 10AB on 30 September 2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), seeking renewal of its registration under section 12AB. On examining the application, the CIT(E), Mumbai, found it incomplete and considered that all documents required to accompany it had not been furnished. A notice dated 6 November 2025 was therefore issued, calling for the complete set of documents and details required under Rule 17A(2).
According to the CIT(E), the Sangh did not comply with all the terms of that notice. The CIT(E) observed that, before granting registration, he had to be satisfied about the objects of the institution, the genuineness of its activities and compliance with other laws relevant to achieving those objects. He held that the necessary satisfaction could not be reached without the required information. By order dated 4 March 2026, he rejected the renewal application.
The Sangh appealed to the Tribunal. Its central grievance was that the CIT(E) had not told it which particular documents or details were still missing. It argued that an allegation of incomplete compliance, without identifying the deficiencies and giving an effective chance to cure them, could not fairly support rejection of the application.
What Did the Rejection Order Actually Say?
The Tribunal examined the CIT(E)’s order and found that its sole basis for rejection was the asserted failure to comply fully with the notice dated 6 November 2025 and to furnish all documents or details under Rule 17A(2). Yet the order did not identify any particular document or detail that the Sangh had failed to furnish.
That omission mattered because the applicant could not tell from the rejection order what specific deficiency had led to the adverse decision. A statement that an applicant has not complied with “all terms” of a notice records the CIT(E)’s conclusion, but it does not show which requirements remained unsatisfied. The Tribunal considered the nature of registration proceedings and the consequences of rejecting an application under section 12AB, and held that the Sangh deserved one more effective opportunity to furnish the requisite material and support its claim.
The Tribunal also recognised the applicant’s responsibility. It stated that the Sangh must comply with notices issued by the CIT(E) and furnish the documents and information called for within the stipulated time. Its direction for a further opportunity was therefore accompanied by a clear expectation of cooperation from the applicant.
CIT(E) Directed to Specify the Requirements and Decide Afresh
The ITAT set aside the order dated 4 March 2026 and restored the application to the CIT(E). It directed the CIT(E) to intimate the specific documents or details, if any, required to examine the application. After giving the Sangh a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the CIT(E) must consider the material furnished and decide the application afresh in accordance with law by a reasoned order.
The Sangh, for its part, was directed to supply the requisite details and documents and extend full cooperation. These directions give both sides a defined task: the CIT(E) must say precisely what is needed, and the applicant must respond with the material within the time allowed.
The Tribunal expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the Sangh’s eligibility for registration under section 12AB. All issues concerning that eligibility remain open before the CIT(E). The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Author’s Comments
The significance of this order lies in the specificity required when an application is rejected for deficient documentation. The CIT(E) is entitled to seek the material needed to examine the objects, activities and relevant legal compliance of an institution. The applicant is obliged to furnish it. But where rejection rests on alleged non-compliance, the order must make clear what the applicant failed to submit. Without that identification, the applicant cannot effectively address the deficiency, and the basis of the rejection cannot be properly examined.
This decision should not be read as dispensing with the requirements of Rule 17A(2) or as holding that every incomplete application must be approved. Nor is it a finding that Suvidya Prasarak Sangh satisfied the conditions for renewal. It gives the Sangh a further opportunity to establish its case through documents, followed by a fresh, reasoned decision from the CIT(E).
For trusts and institutions facing similar notices, the practical lesson is to respond item by item, preserve proof of what has been submitted and promptly address any clearly identified shortfall. For the authority, the corresponding requirement is equally practical: if information remains outstanding, identify it before deciding the application.
Cases Discussed/Relied Upon
- Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Supreme Court); (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)
- CIT Vs Society for the Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment (Supreme Court); (2016) 382 ITR 6 (SC)
- Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North (Supreme Court); AIR 1965 SC 1636; (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC)
- Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (Supreme Court); (2010) 9 SCC 496; [2010] INSC 715; Decision Date: 08/09/2010
- Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT (Supreme Court); (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)
- Shree Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad); ITA No. 2515/Ahd/2015; Decision Date: 22/02/2016
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04/03/2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“Ld. CIT(E)”] u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), rejecting the application filed by the assessee seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act for A.Y. 2025-26.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in concluding that the appellant has not complied with all terms of notice dated 6th November 2025.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in not communicating the non-complied items of the appellant.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in not giving an opportunity to the appellant to submit the non-complied terms of the said notice. Thereby violating the principal of natural justice.
4. The Appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements:
- Citation: (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)
- Citation: (2016) 382 ITR 6 (SC)
- Citation: (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)
- Citation: AIR 1965 SC 1636; (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC)
- 2010) 9 SCC 496; [2010] INSC 715 (8 September 2010)
- Citation: (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)
- PCIT vs. Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust (ITAT Mumbai)
5. The Appellant craves leave to alter, add, amend, modify, or delete any other ground as stated above.”
2.1. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
Assessee filed an application in Form No.10AB on 30/09/2025 u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. On verification of the said application, the Ld. CIT(E) observed that the application was not complete and that all the documents required to accompany the application had not been furnished. Accordingly, a notice dated 06/11/2025 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents/details as required under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
2.2. The Ld.CIT(E) observed that the assessee had not complied with all the terms of the aforesaid notice. He further observed that, for grant of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, satisfaction was required to be arrived at regarding the objects of the trust or institution, genuineness of its activities and compliance with any other law for the time being in force, as may be material for achieving its objects. According to the Ld.CIT(E), in the absence of necessary compliance by the assessee, such satisfaction could not be arrived at. The application seeking renewal of registration was accordingly rejected vide the impugned order dated 04/03/2026.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
2.3. The grievance of the assessee, in substance, is that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application for alleged non-compliance without specifically communicating the documents/details which remained to be furnished and without affording an effective opportunity to cure such deficiencies.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.
2.4. We note that the sole basis for rejection of the application by the Ld. CIT(E) is that the assessee had not complied with all the terms of notice dated 06/11/2025 and had not furnished all the documents/details required under Rule 17A(2). However, from the impugned order, we do not find any specific identification of the particular documents/details which remained to be furnished by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(E) has merely recorded that the assessee did not comply with “all terms” of the notice and, for want of such compliance, proceeded to reject the application.
2.5. In our considered opinion, considering the nature of proceedings and the consequences flowing from rejection of an application seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act, the assessee deserves one more effective opportunity to furnish the requisite documents/details and substantiate its claim for registration in accordance with law. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) and furnish all such documents/information as may be called for within the stipulated time.
2.6. We therefore set aside the impugned order dated 04/03/2026 and restore the application of the assessee to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for consideration afresh. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to intimate to the assessee the specific documents/details, if any, which are required for examination of its application and thereafter afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite details/documents and extend full cooperation in the proceedings. Upon considering the material so furnished, the Ld. CIT(E) shall adjudicate the application afresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order.
2.7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act and all issues are left open for consideration by the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law.
2.8. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 4, being in the nature of reliance upon judicial precedents, requires no separate adjudication. Ground No. 5 is general in nature and therefore requires no adjudication.
3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25-09-2026.
