Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount Vs Exem. Ward 1(1) (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai ITAT allowed the appeal of Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount and directed the CIT(E) to grant renewal of registration under Section 12AB. The assessee, popularly known as Mount Mary or Mount Mary’s Basilica, is a religious and charitable institution at Bandra, Mumbai. It was established in 1955, is registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and has enjoyed income-tax registration and exemption for several decades. It had also obtained registration under the new regime through Form No. 10AC dated 23/09/2021. The dispute arose when its Form No. 10AB application dated 29/09/2025 for renewal was rejected because it could not furnish a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association.
The Tribunal held that Rule 17A(2) itself recognises two different situations. Clause (a) deals with an applicant created or established under an instrument, while clause (b) specifically covers an applicant created or established otherwise than under an instrument and requires a document evidencing its creation or establishment. Therefore, if a formal trust deed were indispensable in every case, Rule 17A(2)(b) would have little or no independent purpose. The absence of a formal instrument may require the applicant to establish its creation and existence through appropriate evidentiary material, but the enquiry cannot end merely because no formal trust deed exists.
The assessee had furnished its application before the Charity Commissioner, the statutory registration certificate issued after enquiry, its long-standing registration under the Income-tax Act, registration under the new regime and other documents evidencing its continued existence and activities. The Tribunal held that these documents could not be discarded merely because they did not constitute a formal trust deed. It also noted that the assessee had been recognised as a public trust by the competent statutory authority for more than seven decades and that no adverse finding had been recorded regarding either its charitable or religious objects or the genuineness of its activities.
The Tribunal found substantial support in the coordinate-bench decision in St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5646 & 5849/Mum/2026, dated 05/08/2026. In that analogous case, absence of a formal written trust deed or MOA was held insufficient by itself to refuse Section 12AB renewal where cogent documentary evidence established the institution’s creation, establishment and continued existence. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the Basilica’s application merely because no separate written trust deed or MOA had been furnished.
The Tribunal nevertheless clarified that its conclusion was confined to the ground on which the renewal application had been rejected and that the CIT(E)’s statutory power to examine the charitable or religious objects, genuineness of activities and compliance with other applicable laws remained unaffected. Since no adverse finding had been recorded on those matters, and the assessee had been continuously recognised as a public charitable/religious institution, the impugned order dated 29/03/2026 was set aside and the CIT(E) was directed to grant renewal of registration under Section 12AB in accordance with law. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
Cases Discussed
- Laxminarayan Maharaj and Another v. CIT and Others, [1984] 150 ITR 465 (Madhya Pradesh High Court) — Relied upon for holding that where a trust was not created under a formal instrument, evidentiary documents affording a logical basis for inferring creation of the trust could satisfy the documentary requirement under Rule 17A.
- Tsurphu Labrang v. DIT (Exemption), [2016] 159 ITD 848 (Delhi – Trib.) — Relied upon for the proposition that execution of a formal deed is not by itself indispensable for registration where evidence on record establishes the trust’s creation and existence.
- Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (Exemption), [2016] 72 taxmann.com 165 (Cochin – Trib.) — Relied upon for holding that Rule 17A recognises a trust or institution established otherwise than under an instrument and requires documentary evidence of its creation or establishment.
- Pr. CIT (Exemptions) v. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid, [2018] 402 ITR 29 (Gujarat High Court) — Relied upon by the assessee concerning proof of existence of a religious trust through documents evidencing its creation.
- CIT v. Hazrat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust, [2002] 256 ITR 193 (Gujarat High Court) — Relied upon concerning the evidentiary significance of statutory registration under public trust law.
- Ananda Social & Educational Trust v. CIT, [2020] 426 ITR 340 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon by the assessee regarding the statutory scope of enquiry at the registration stage.
- Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT (Exemptions), [2026] 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bombay High Court) — Relied upon for the contention that the Department should not depart from its earlier position in the absence of a material change warranting a different conclusion.
- Shree Ram Gopal Temple Trust v. CIT (Exemptions), [2025] 178 taxmann.com 698 (Chandigarh – Trib.) — Referred to by the assessee on the issue concerning absence of a formal trust deed and use of evidentiary documents.
- Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple v. CIT (Exemptions), ITA No. 89/Hyd/2016, order dated 17/06/2016 — Referred to by the assessee on similar issues concerning absence of a formal trust deed and evidentiary documents.
- St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5646 & 5849/Mum/2026, order dated 05/08/2026 (ITAT Mumbai) — Materially followed by the Tribunal; in analogous circumstances, absence of a formal trust deed or MOA was held insufficient by itself to refuse renewal under Section 12AB where cogent documentary evidence established creation, establishment and continued existence.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT MUMBAI ORDER
Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of the order dated 29/03/2026 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(E)”], on the following ground/s of appeal:-
“1) The learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Application for Registration under Section 12AB of the Act solely on the ground that the Appellant failed to furnish the instrument of Trust MOA as it amounts to noncompliance and nonfulfillment of mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 12AB (1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2) The learned CIT(E) erred in observing that the application in Schedule II and subsequent registration Certificate issued by the Charity Commissioner do not constitute documents evidencing the creation of the trust as prescribed under Rule 17A(2)(b) of Income tax Rules, 1962 by completely overlooking the fact that the appellant is a charitable trust duly registered with the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 based on valid declaration of trust since the year 1956 and exists as a public charitable trust.
3) The learned CIT(E) failed to consider and appreciate the Certificate of Registration granted by the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 which is a valid document that establishes the existence of the Appellant Trust and is covered by the provisions of Rule 17(A)(2)(b) any document evidencing the creation OR establishment of the trust
4) The learned CIT(E) erred in observing that the Canon Law does not have any direct application for management and administrations of charitable trusts
5) The learned CIT(E) erred in relying upon the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 as the same are clearly not applicable in the case of the Appellant Trust as it is undisputedly a public charitable trust.
6) The learned CIT(E) erred in summarily rejecting the renewal application without considering the historical context and past records and evidence like audit reports and Return of Income filed over the past several decades that confirm the trusts longstanding charitable existence.
7) The CIT (E) failed to appreciate that there has been no change in the objects of the School, the nature of its activities, OR the applicable law, the learned CIT(E) is bound by the Rule of Consistency as established by the Honble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT. The CIT (E) cannot arbitrarily change its stand to deny a status it has historically recognized and accepted.
8) The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the Department has granted renewed registration under Section 12A12AA12AB of the Act for several decades in the past based on the same set of documents furnished on earlier occasions.
9) The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that his power under section 12AB of the Act is limited to verifying the genuineness of the activities of the charitable nature of object which in the case of the Appellant has not been doubted and therefore the order passed by the CIT (E) on the alleged ground based on format of the document, rather than the nature of the activities is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
10) The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the rejection Order passed by him certainly affects the day to day management and functioning of the Appellant Trust though he may not have intended so.”
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The assessee, Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount, is a religious and charitable institution situated at Bandra, Mumbai, popularly known as Mount Mary or Mount Mary’s Basilica. The institution was established in the year 1955 and its activities include religious, medical and educational assistance to the needy, relief of the poor and other social services. The institution functions under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Bombay and is administered in accordance with the Canon Law applicable to the institution.
2.1. The assessee has stated that it does not have, nor has it ever been constituted under, a separate written trust deed, Memorandum of Association or any other similar instrument in writing. It is, however, registered as a public charitable trust under the Bombay/Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The assessee has also been registered under the Income-tax Act and has enjoyed the benefit of registration and exemption as a charitable institution over several decades. It has further been granted registration/approval under the new regime of sections 12A/12AA/12AB, including registration vide Form No. 10AC dated 23/09/2021.
2.2. The assessee submitted that, in the absence of a separate written instrument, the application filed before the Charity Commissioner, together with the certificate of registration granted by the Charity Commissioner after due enquiry, constituted documentary evidence of the creation and establishment of the trust. It was further submitted that the assessee has an unbroken record of statutory recognition by various authorities for several decades.
2.3. The assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 29/09/2025 seeking renewal of its registration. During the course of proceedings, the Ld. CIT(E) issued notices dated 15/11/2025 and 14/03/2026, calling upon the assessee, inter alia, to furnish a self-certified copy of the instrument of trust/MOA in terms of Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee furnished responses dated 27/11/2025 and 16/03/2026, explaining that no separate trust deed or MOA existed and furnishing the documents evidencing its creation, establishment and continued statutory recognition.
2.4. The Ld. CIT(E), however, rejected the application principally on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish the instrument of trust/MOA despite specific requisition and that such failure amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements prescribed u/s 12AB(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 17A(2) of the Rules.
2.5. The Ld. CIT(E) further proceeded on the basis that the documents furnished by the assessee, including the application filed before the Charity Commissioner and the certificate of registration issued by the Charity Commissioner, did not constitute documents evidencing the creation of the trust for the purposes of Rule 17A(2)(b). The Ld. CIT(E) also considered the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and the applicability of Canon Law to the assessee’s constitution and administration.
Accordingly, the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of registration u/s 12AB was rejected vide order dated 29/03/2026.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Though the assessee has raised as many as ten grounds of apepal, challenging the rejection of its application for renewal of registration u/s 12AB, the principal grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the assessee had not furnished a formal instrument of trust/MOA, without appreciating that the assessee was established otherwise than under a written instrument and had furnished other documentary evidence evidencing its creation and establishment.
3.1. The assessee has further challenged the reliance placed upon the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, the alleged disregard of the registration granted by the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the failure to appreciate the long-standing recognition of the assessee under the Income-tax Act. The assessee has also invoked the principle of consistency.
4. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an old religious and charitable institution and that its existence, objects and activities have been recognised by various statutory authorities for several decades. It was submitted that the assessee does not have a separate written trust deed or MOA as it was not constituted under such an instrument. The assessee is, however, duly registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and has also enjoyed registration under the Income-tax Act for several decades.
4.1. The Ld. AR submitted that Rule 17A(2)(a) and Rule 17A(2)(b) specifically contemplate two distinct situations. While clause (a) applies where the applicant is created or established under an instrument, clause (b) expressly applies where the applicant is created or established otherwise than under an instrument. It was, therefore, submitted that the Ld. CIT(E), by insisting upon production of a formal trust deed in a case falling under Rule 17A(2)(b), had effectively rendered clause (b) otiose.
4.2. It was further submitted that the application filed by the assessee before the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act contained complete particulars concerning the trust, its trustees, its objects and its financial particulars. After conducting the statutory enquiry, the Charity Commissioner had granted registration to the assessee as a public trust vide certificate dated 20/06/1955. According to the Ld. AR, this certificate, issued by the competent statutory authority after enquiry, constituted a document evidencing the creation and establishment of the trust for the purposes of Rule 17A(2)(b).
4.3. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had been continuously recognised under the Income-tax Act, including registration under the erstwhile section 12A/12AA provisions and, subsequently, registration under the new regime vide Form No. 10AC dated 23/09/2021, valid for A.Ys. 2022-23 to 2026-27. It was submitted that there had been no change in the objects, constitution or activities of the assessee which could justify a departure from the position consistently accepted by the Department.
4.4. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxminarayan Maharaj and Another v. CIT and Others reported in [1984] 150 ITR 465 (MP), wherein, in the context of Rule 17A, it was held that where a trust was not created under an instrument, the expression relating to documents evidencing the creation of the trust would embrace evidentiary documents which afford a logical basis for inferring the creation of the trust.
4.5. The Ld. AR also relied upon Tsurphu Labrang v. DIT (Exemption) reported in [2016] 159 ITD 848 (Delhi – Trib.), wherein registration was upheld in the case of a trust stated to have been founded without a formal instrument, and upon Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (Exemption) reported in [2016] 72 taxmann.com 165 (Cochin – Trib.), wherein it was held that it was not necessary that the institution/trust should be established under an instrument and that what was required was a document evidencing its creation or establishment.
4.6. The Ld. AR further relied upon Pr. CIT (Exemptions) v. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid reported in [2018] 402 ITR 29 (Guj.), wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court recognised that the existence of a religious trust could be established by documents evidencing its creation, and CIT v. Hazrat Pir Shah-e-Alam Roza Estate Trust reported in [2002] 256 ITR 193 (Guj.), in support of the proposition concerning the evidentiary significance of statutory registration under the public trust law.
4.7. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ananda Social & Educational Trust v. CIT reported in [2020] 426 ITR 340 (SC), in support of the proposition that the scope of enquiry at the stage of registration is limited to the statutory parameters prescribed by the Act.
4.8. The Ld. AR further placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT (Exemptions) reported in [2026] 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bom.), and submitted that the Department could not depart from its earlier position in the absence of any material change warranting a different conclusion.
4.9. The Ld. AR also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in Shree Ram Gopal Temple Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) reported in [2025] 178 taxmann.com 698 (Chandigarh – Trib.), as well as Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple v. CIT (Exemptions), ITA No. 89/Hyd/2016, order dated 17/06/2016, wherein similar issues concerning absence of a formal trust deed and evidentiary documents were considered.
Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) had adopted an unduly narrow and hyper-technical interpretation of Rule 17A(2), and prayed that the impugned order be set aside and renewal of registration u/s 12AB be directed.
4.10. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E). We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.
5. The controversy before us is narrow. The assessee’s application for renewal of registration u/s 12AB has been rejected essentially because the assessee does not possess a separate written instrument of trust/MOA and, despite requisition, could not furnish the same.
5.1. It is not in dispute that the assessee is an old religious and charitable institution and that it has been registered as a public trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 since 20/06/1955. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has enjoyed recognition under the Income-tax Act for several decades and was granted registration under the new regime vide Form No. 10AC dated 23/09/2021. The material placed before us further demonstrates that the assessee’s objects and activities have continued over a substantial period and no adverse finding regarding the genuineness of its activities has been brought on record.
5.2. The principal question, therefore, is whether the absence of a formal written trust deed, by itself, constitutes a valid ground for rejection of an application for renewal of registration u/s 12AB where the applicant asserts that it was established otherwise than under an instrument and furnishes other documents evidencing its creation and continued existence.
5.3. We find the statutory scheme contained in Rule 17A(2) to be of considerable significance. Clause (a) deals with an applicant which is created or established under an instrument, whereas clause (b) specifically deals with an applicant which is created or established otherwise than under an instrument and requires a self-certified copy of the document evidencing its creation or establishment.
5.4. Thus, the Rule itself recognises that an institution may be created or established otherwise than under a formal instrument. If the production of a formal trust deed were an indispensable requirement in every case, clause (b) of Rule 17A(2) would have little or no independent purpose.
5.5. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court considered an analogous issue in Laxminarayan Maharaj and Another v. CIT and Others reported in [1984] 150 ITR 465 (MP). In that case, the trust was not created under a formal instrument and the Commissioner had taken a narrow view of the requirement relating to documents evidencing creation of the trust. The Hon’ble High Court held that the expression covered evidentiary documents which afforded a logical basis for inferring the creation of the trust and quashed the rejection of registration.
5.6. The aforesaid principle has also found acceptance in subsequent judicial decisions. In Merciful Jesus Church v. CIT (Exemption) (supra) the Cochin Bench held that Rule 17A itself recognises that a trust/institution need not necessarily be established under an instrument and that what is required is a document evidencing its creation or establishment.
5.7. Likewise, in Tsurphu Labrang (supra), the Tribunal considered a case where the trust was stated to have been founded without a formal instrument and held that the execution of a formal deed was not, by itself, indispensable for registration where the evidence on record established its creation and existence. The aforesaid decision was also approved by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, as recorded in the material placed before us.
5.8. We further find that the assessee’s case is supported by its statutory registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The assessee has placed on record the application filed before the Charity Commissioner, pursuant to which the competent authority conducted the prescribed enquiry and thereafter granted registration as a public trust vide certificate dated 20/06/1955.
5.9. The statutory framework under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is itself significant. The Charity Commissioner authorities conduct an enquiry into the existence and nature of the public trust and record their findings. The fact that the assessee has been recognised as a public trust by the competent statutory authority for more than seven decades cannot be brushed aside as being wholly irrelevant while examining the evidentiary requirement contemplated under Rule 17A(2)(b).
5.10. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(E) has not recorded any adverse finding regarding the charitable or religious objects of the assessee, nor has any adverse finding been recorded regarding the genuineness of its activities. The rejection rests essentially upon the absence of a separate written trust deed/MOA.
6. In our view, the approach adopted by the Ld.CIT(E) is too restrictive. The absence of a formal instrument may undoubtedly require the applicant to establish its creation and existence through appropriate evidentiary material. However, where the Rule itself recognises institutions established otherwise than under an instrument, the enquiry cannot end merely upon finding that no formal trust deed exists. The Commissioner is required to examine the alternative documentary evidence furnished by the applicant and determine whether the same establishes its creation and continued existence.
6.1. In the present case, the assessee furnished the statutory registration certificate issued by the Charity Commissioner, the original application submitted before the Charity Commissioner, its long-standing registration under the Act, the subsequent registration under the new regime and other documents evidencing its continued existence and activities.
6.2. We find that these documents cannot be discarded merely because they do not constitute a formal trust deed. Indeed, such an approach would substantially defeat the distinction consciously maintained by Rule 17A(2)(a) and Rule 17A(2)(b).
6.3. The facts before us are also materially supported by the recent decision of the co-ordinate Mumbai Bench in St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5646 & 5849/Mum/2026, order dated 05/08/2026, wherein, in an analogous case involving a public charitable institution registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and continuously recognised under the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal held that the absence of a formal written trust deed or MOA could not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusing renewal of registration u/s 12AB where the assessee had produced cogent documentary evidence evidencing its creation, establishment and continued existence. The Tribunal, accordingly, directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant renewal of registration.
6.4. The said decision is particularly relevant to the controversy before us, as the statutory provisions, the nature of the objection raised by the Ld. CIT(E), and the evidentiary material relied upon are substantially similar. We, therefore, hold that the Ld. CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration u/s 12AB merely on the ground that no separate written trust deed or MOA was furnished.
6.5. At the same time, we clarify that our conclusion is confined to the ground on which the application has been rejected. The Ld.CIT(E)’s statutory power to examine the charitable/religious objects, genuineness of activities and compliance with other applicable laws remains unaffected. In the present case, however, no adverse finding on any such aspect has been recorded in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29/03/2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is set aside.
7. Since the material placed before us demonstrates that the assessee has been continuously recognised as a public charitable/religious institution, is registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, has enjoyed registration under the Income-tax Act for several decades and has already been granted registration under the new regime vide Form No. 10AC, and since no adverse finding has been recorded regarding its objects or genuineness of activities, we direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant renewal of registration u/s 12AB to the assessee in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/08/2026.
