Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal of Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation for statistical purposes and set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai rejecting its Form No. 10AB application for renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a public charitable trust, had earlier obtained regular approval under section 80G by order dated 23.09.2025 for Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27. It thereafter filed Form No. 10AB on 27.09.2025 seeking renewal from Assessment Year 2027-28 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). The CIT(E), however, rejected the application as not maintainable on the premise that the assessee held only provisional approval and should have applied under clause (iii).
The Tribunal found that the foundation of the rejection was factually incorrect. Before the renewal application was filed, the assessee’s provisional approval had already culminated into regular approval through the order dated 23.09.2025. The assessee had disclosed the Unique Registration Number, registration date and effective date in Form No. 10AB, uploaded a self-certified copy of the regular approval order and again brought the approval to the CIT(E)’s notice in its subsequent reply. The Tribunal held that clause (ii) governs an institution whose existing approval is due to expire, whereas clause (iii) applies where an institution continues to hold provisional approval. Since the assessee held regular approval on 27.09.2025, its application under clause (ii) was valid and maintainable.
The Tribunal nevertheless noted that the CIT(E), having rejected the application at the threshold, had not examined the assessee’s eligibility for renewal on the merits of the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5), including its charitable objects, genuineness of activities, statutory compliance and documentary evidence furnished in response to the notice under Rule 11AA. The impugned order dated 21.03.2026 was therefore set aside and the matter restored to the CIT(E), who was directed to treat the application under clause (ii) as valid and decide the assessee’s eligibility for renewal on merits after providing an effective opportunity of hearing. A fresh reasoned order was directed to be passed within six months.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, in Form No. 10AD, whereby the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rejected as not maintainable. The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the impugned order, principally on the ground that the learned CIT(E) proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that the assessee was holding only provisional approval under section 80G and, therefore, ought to have filed its application under clause (iii), instead of clause (ii), of the first proviso to section 80G(5). Since all the grounds arise from the same factual foundation, they are taken up together.
2. Brief facts are that the assessee, Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation, is a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is stated to be engaged in various charitable activities, inter alia, providing assistance to elderly persons in hospitals and old-age homes, relief to poor and distressed persons, medical aid and supplies, and educational support. The assessee is also registered under section 12A/12AB of the Act and had earlier been granted approval under section 80G under the erstwhile provisions vide order dated 15.12.2009. Under the new statutory regime, it was granted provisional approval under section 80G vide registration number AAATJ8684KF20212 dated 24.09.2021. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 25.05.2024 seeking regular approval, which was initially rejected by the learned CIT(E) vide order dated 16.10.2024. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 6520/Mum/2024 and, vide order dated 10.02.2025, the Tribunal set aside the rejection and restored the matter to the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the learned CIT(E) issued notice dated 21.08.2025 calling upon the assessee to furnish the relevant documents. The assessee submitted its reply dated 28.08.2025 along with the supporting documentary evidence. After examining the material so furnished, the learned CIT(E), vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Form No. 10AD, granted approval under section 80G bearing Unique Registration Number AAATJ8684K25MB01 for the Assessment Years 2022–23 to 2026–27 under clause (ii) of the second proviso to section 80G(5). Since the said approval was operative up to the period relevant to Assessment Year 2026–27, the assessee filed another application in Form No. 10AB on 27.09.2025 seeking renewal of the approval from Assessment Year 2027–28 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5).
4. The material placed before us shows that the assessee had expressly disclosed its subsisting regular approval in the application itself. In the particulars of registrations furnished with Form No. 10AB, the assessee mentioned its registration under section 80G bearing Unique Registration Number AAATJ8684K25MB01, the date of registration as 23.09.2025 and the date from which it was effective as 01.04.2021. Further, against Item No. 5 of the list of documents accompanying the application, requiring a self-certified copy of the existing order granting registration or approval under section 12A, section 12AA, section 12AB or section 80G, the assessee uploaded the approval order dated 23.09.2025 itself. Thereafter, in response to the notice dated 03.01.2026 issued by the learned CIT(E) under Rule 11AA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the assessee filed its reply dated 15.01.2026 and furnished, inter alia, its registration certificates, history of approval under section 80G, activity reports, financial statements, returns of income, details of donations and other supporting evidence. The regular approval granted on 23.09.2025 was thus not only disclosed in the application but was also specifically brought to the notice of the learned CIT(E) during the course of the proceedings.
5. However, the learned CIT(E), vide the impugned order dated 21.03.2026, rejected the application as not maintainable on the ground that the assessee was holding only provisional approval under section 80G and, consequently, ought to have filed its application under clause (iii), instead of clause (ii), of the first proviso to section 80G(5). The application was accordingly treated as having been filed under the wrong clause.
6. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the very foundation of the impugned order is contrary to the material available on record. He drew our attention to the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned CIT(E) in Form No. 10AD and submitted that, by virtue of the said order, the assessee had already been granted regular approval under section 80G for the Assessment Years 2022–23 to 2026–27. Therefore, on the date of filing the present application, i.e., 27.09.2025, the assessee was no longer holding provisional approval and its application under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) was legally correct and maintainable. He further pointed out that the particulars of the approval, including its Unique Registration Number and effective date, were disclosed in Form No. 10AB itself; a self-certified copy of the approval order was uploaded with the application; and its existence was once again brought to the notice of the learned CIT(E) in the reply dated 15.01.2026. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the impugned order; however, the existence and contents of the regular approval dated 23.09.2025 could not be controverted.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material placed on record. The solitary reason for rejecting the assessee’s application is that it was allegedly holding only provisional approval under section 80G and, therefore, ought to have filed its application under clause (iii), instead of clause (ii), of the first proviso to section 80G(5). However, vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Form No. 10AD, the learned CIT(E) had already granted approval to the assessee under section 80G bearing Unique Registration Number AAATJ8684K25MB01 for the Assessment Years 2022–23 to 2026–27. The annexure forming part of the said order records that the approval was granted after giving effect to the earlier order of the Tribunal and upon consideration of the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. Thus, before the present application was filed on 27.09.2025, the assessee’s provisional approval had already culminated into regular approval.
8. Clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) governs a case where an institution or fund is already approved and the period of such approval is due to expire, whereas clause (iii) applies where the institution or fund continues to hold provisional approval. The nature of the approval subsisting on the date of filing the application is, therefore, determinative of the clause under which the application is required to be made. Since the assessee was holding regular approval on 27.09.2025, its application under clause (ii) was under the correct statutory provision. The conclusion that the application ought to have been filed under clause (iii) thus proceeds upon a foundational error regarding the assessee’s legal status as on the date of filing the application.
9. This is also not a case where the order granting regular approval was produced for the first time before the Tribunal or otherwise remained outside the record of the learned CIT(E). The registration number, date and effective date of the approval were specifically disclosed in Form No. 10AB; the self-certified approval order dated 23.09.2025 was uploaded against the designated item requiring a copy of the existing approval; and the same was again referred to in the assessee’s reply dated 15.01.2026. The evidence demonstrating the true status of the assessee was thus embedded in the application itself and available at several places in the record. Once these documents were before the learned CIT(E), the application could not have been rejected by treating the assessee as a holder of merely provisional approval.
10. At the same time, we find that the learned CIT(E), having rejected the application at the threshold as not maintainable, has not examined the assessee’s eligibility for renewal on the touchstone of the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5). The impugned order does not contain any adjudication regarding the charitable nature of the assessee’s objects, genuineness of its activities, compliance with the statutory conditions or the documentary evidence furnished in response to the notice issued under Rule 11AA. These aspects require examination by the competent authority at the first instance. Therefore, while the preliminary objection regarding maintainability cannot be sustained, it would not be appropriate for us to direct the grant of approval without adjudication upon the remaining statutory requirements.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.03.2026 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(E) shall treat the assessee’s application dated 27.09.2025, filed under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), as valid and maintainable and shall examine the assessee’s eligibility for renewal of approval on merits, having regard to the material already available on record and such further information or documents as may be lawfully required. The assessee shall be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard before passing the fresh order. We clarify that, except for deciding the validity and maintainability of the application under clause (ii), we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s eligibility for renewal, and all such issues are left open for adjudication in accordance with law.
12. Having regard to the fact that the assessee’s existing approval has already run its course and its application has remained undecided on merits owing to its rejection on an erroneous preliminary premise, we direct the learned CIT(E) to pass a fresh, reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th September, 2026.
