Case Law Details
Shree Ghughari Dasha Disawal Sahaj Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai ITAT: U/s 12AB Registration Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Original U/s 12A Certificate Issued Decades Ago Is Not Available
The Mumbai ITAT held that renewal/continuation of registration under section 12AB cannot be rejected solely because the trust is unable to produce the original section 12A registration certificate issued nearly three decades ago. The Tribunal noted that the trust had consistently asserted that it was granted registration under section 12A on 19.09.1996, which had never been cancelled or withdrawn, and that it had been regularly assessed as a charitable institution with exemption under section 11 being allowed over the years. Significantly, the Department itself had granted the trust registration under section 12AB in Form No. 10AC on 24.09.2021, which necessarily presupposed the existence of a valid earlier registration. The Tribunal held that the inability to produce the physical certificate was only a procedural deficiency and could not negate the existence of the original registration.
The Tribunal further observed that before rejecting the application, the CIT(E) ought to have verified the departmental registration records, historical assessment records and other internal records, especially when the assessee had requested issuance of a duplicate certificate. The assumption that the absence of the physical certificate meant the absence of registration was held to be unsustainable. Since the CIT(E) had not examined the trust’s charitable objects, genuineness of activities or compliance with the conditions of section 12AB, the Tribunal set aside the rejection order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after verifying the departmental records and granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal has been filed by the assessee trust against the order dated 22.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, whereby the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking renewal/continuation of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act has been rejected.
2. The principal grievance raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(E) has rejected the application solely on the ground that the assessee could not furnish a copy of the original registration certificate granted under section 12A under the erstwhile regime prior to 01.04.2021. According to the assessee, it had been granted registration under section 12A vide Registration Certificate No. TR/32193 dated 19.09.1996 and the said registration has never been withdrawn, cancelled or declared invalid at any stage. It has further been submitted that the trust has been continuously assessed as a charitable institution for several decades and exemption under section 11 has been allowed by the Department from time to time. It was pointed out that the original registration certificate, being more than twenty five years old, was inadvertently misplaced and despite an application having been made before the Department seeking issuance of a duplicate certificate, the same was not issued. The assessee, therefore, contended that inability to produce the physical certificate could not be a valid basis to deny continuation of registration when the factum of registration itself stood established from departmental records and subsequent actions of the Department.
3. We have carefully considered the material placed before us and the reasons recorded by the learned CIT(E). A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the rejection has not been founded upon any adverse finding regarding the charitable objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities, violation of any statutory provision, or non-compliance with any law material for achieving its objects. The sole basis for rejection is the non-furnishing of the old registration certificate granted under section 12A prior to 01.04.2021.
4. In our considered opinion, the approach adopted by the learned CIT(E) is not sustainable on the facts available on record. The assessee has specifically stated that registration under section 12A had originally been granted vide Certificate No. TR/32193 dated 19.09.1996. Significantly, this fact has not been shown to be incorrect by the Department. On the contrary, the records indicate that the assessee had subsequently been granted registration under section 12AB vide Form No.10AC dated 24.09.2021 by the Department itself. Such registration under the new regime did not emanate from a vacuum but necessarily proceeded on the premise that the assessee was a trust enjoying registration under the earlier regime. Once the Department itself has recognised the assessee as a registered charitable institution and has granted registration under section 12AB, the existence of the earlier registration cannot be disregarded merely because the assessee is unable to produce a physical copy of a certificate issued nearly three decades ago.
5. It is further pertinent to note that the learned CIT(E) has not recorded any finding that the registration granted in 1996 was ever cancelled or withdrawn in accordance with law. It is equally undisputed that for several years the assessee has been assessed in the status of a charitable institution and exemption under section 11 has been allowed. These surrounding circumstances constitute relevant and significant evidence regarding the continued existence and recognition of the assessee’s registration. In such circumstances, the absence of the physical certificate could at best constitute a procedural deficiency. However, a procedural deficiency cannot, by itself, lead to a conclusion that the original registration never existed or that the subsequent registration granted by the Department stood rendered invalid.
6. We also find merit in the contention of the assessee that the learned CIT(E), before drawing an adverse conclusion, ought to have verified the relevant departmental records, historical assessment records and registration records available within the departmental system. When the assessee specifically asserted the grant of registration under Certificate No. TR/32193 dated 19.09.1996 and further pointed out that a request for issuance of duplicate certificate had been made, it was incumbent upon the authority to verify the departmental records instead of rejecting the application solely on account of non-production of a document which was originally issued by the Department itself. The impugned order proceeds on the assumption that absence of the physical certificate necessarily implies absence of registration. Such an assumption does not emerge from any positive material brought on record and overlooks the surrounding facts evidencing continued recognition of the assessee’s charitable status by the Department.
7. Considering the entirety of facts, we are of the view that the rejection of the assessee’s application solely for want of the physical copy of the original registration certificate is not justified. Since the impugned order does not contain any examination of the assessee’s objects, genuineness of activities or other conditions relevant for grant of registration under section 12AB, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) shall verify the departmental records regarding the registration stated to have been granted vide Certificate No. TR/32193 dated 19.09.1996 and thereafter adjudicate the assessee’s application afresh in accordance with law after providing due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to mention, the assessee shall extend full cooperation and furnish all such details and documents as may be called for during the course of fresh proceedings.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24th June, 2026.
Author Bio
