St. Peters Church Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: Can a long-established public charitable institution be denied renewal of section 12AB registration because it cannot produce a formal trust deed that never existed? The Mumbai ITAT has answered that question in favour of St. Peters Church, Bandra. It set aside the rejection of the Church’s Form 10AB application and directed the Commissioner (Exemptions) to grant renewal in accordance with law.
The distinction that decided the case lies in Rule 17A(2). The Rule addresses both institutions created under a written instrument and institutions established otherwise than under an instrument. Insisting on a trust deed in every case would leave the second category without effect.
Why the Commissioner rejected the application
St. Peters Church applied in Form 10AB on 25 September 2025 for renewal of its regular registration. It explained that it had not been constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association. It was governed by Canon Law and was registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. To support its application, it furnished the papers filed with the Charity Commissioner and the certificate of registration issued by that authority.
The Commissioner considered those documents insufficient. In his view, they showed that the Church had been registered as a public trust but did not constitute the instrument by which it had been created or established. He also noted that no scheme for its management settled by the Charity Commissioner or a competent court had been supplied. Without what he regarded as a foundational instrument, he said he could not verify the Church’s objects, beneficiaries, administration and use of income and property. He rejected the renewal application on 29 March 2026.
The Church’s answer was that there was no separate instrument to furnish. It relied on its Charity Commissioner records, its long-standing existence and its history of registration under the income-tax law. It also pointed out that the Commissioner had recorded no adverse finding about a change in its objects or the genuineness of its activities.
What Rule 17A(2) recognises
The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench decision in St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5679 and 5684/Mum/2026, dated 5 August 2026, which had considered an materially similar rejection.
As the Tribunal explained, Rule 17A(2)(a) deals with an applicant created or established under an instrument. Rule 17A(2)(b) deals with an applicant created or established otherwise than under an instrument and calls for a document evidencing its creation or establishment. The second provision expressly recognises that a charitable institution may exist without a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association.
In the Church’s case, the Commissioner’s own order recorded that it had furnished its application for public trust registration and the Charity Commissioner’s registration certificate. The Tribunal considered those records alongside the explanation that no separate written instrument existed. It found no material distinction from St. Stanislaus Institution and no adverse finding on the Church’s objects, activities or statutory compliance that justified refusing renewal on the ground cited.
The ITAT therefore held that absence of a formal trust deed, by itself, could not defeat renewal when documents evidencing the institution’s creation, registration and continued existence were on record. It set aside the Commissioner’s order and directed renewal under section 12AB in accordance with law.
Author’s comment
The importance of this decision is its outcome. The Tribunal did more than send the application back for another hearing: it directed the grant of renewal, having found that the rejection rested on an untenable demand for an instrument which the institution said had never existed.
The ruling does not mean that an applicant without a trust deed need furnish nothing. Rule 17A(2)(b) still requires documentary evidence of creation or establishment. For an old public trust, Charity Commissioner records, registration papers and the documented history of its existence may therefore be central to the application. The exact material must be examined in each case.
The decision also draws a practical distinction between checking an institution’s objects and activities and insisting on one particular form of document. The Commissioner may examine the statutory conditions for renewal, but an institution established otherwise than by a written instrument cannot be rejected merely because it cannot produce a trust deed. For St. Peters Church, with its long-standing public trust registration and no adverse finding identified on its charitable activities, that distinction secured renewal.
Cases Discussed
- St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E), ITA Nos. 5679/Mum/2026 & 5684/Mum/2026, order dated 05/08/2026 — followed; the Tribunal held the controversy to be identical on facts and in law and applied its reasoning mutatis mutandis.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29/03/2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“Ld. CIT(E)”], rejecting the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB seeking renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on following grounds of appeal:
“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,
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 non-compliance and non-fulfillment 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 religious and charitable trust duly registered with the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 based on valid declaration of trust since the year 1955 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 trust’s long-standing charitable existence.
7.] The CIT(E) failed to appreciate that there has been no change in the objects of the Appellant, the nature of its activities, or the applicable law, the learned CIT(E) is bound by the “Rule of Consistency” as established by the Hon’ble 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 12A/12AA/12AB 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.”
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
That the assessee is a charitable institution registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The assessee filed an application on 25/09/2025 in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act seeking renewal of its regular registration.
3.1. On verification of the application, the Ld. CIT(E) called upon the assessee to furnish the documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In response, the assessee furnished certain details and supporting documents and explained that it had not been constituted under a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association and that it was governed by Canon Law. The assessee further submitted that it was registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and furnished the application made before the Charity Commissioner along with the certificate of registration issued by the said authority.
3.2. The Ld. CIT(E), however, was of the view that the documents furnished by the assessee merely evidenced registration of the public trust and did not constitute the instrument creating or establishing the trust. The Ld. CIT(E) further observed that the assessee had not furnished any scheme for its management and administration settled by the Charity Commissioner or by a competent Court. Accordingly, it was held that the assessee had failed to comply with the requirements prescribed u/s. 12AB(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3.3. The Ld. CIT(E) was also of the view that an instrument of trust constitutes the foundational document for determining the charitable objects of a trust, the intended beneficiaries, the manner of administration and utilisation of its properties and income. According to the Ld. CIT(E), in the absence of such an instrument, the requisite satisfaction contemplated u/s. 12AB could not be arrived at. Consequently, the application seeking renewal of registration was rejected.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
4.1. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue arising in the present appeal stands squarely covered by the consolidated order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E), ITA Nos.5679/Mum/2026 & 5684/Mum/2026, order dated 05/08/2026, wherein an identical rejection on account of non-production of a formal trust deed/Memorandum of Association was considered by the Tribunal.
4.2. The Ld. AR submitted that, similar to the assessee considered in the aforesaid decision, the present assessee is also an old public charitable institution registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and has been enjoying registration under the provisions of the Act for several decades. The assessee was never constituted under a separate formal written instrument and had furnished before the Ld. CIT(E) documents evidencing its creation, establishment and continued existence as a public charitable institution.
4.3. It was submitted that Rule 17A(2) itself contemplates two distinct situations. Clause (a) applies where the applicant is created or established under an instrument, whereas clause (b) specifically applies where the applicant is created or established otherwise than under an instrument. Thus, according to the Ld. AR, insistence upon production of a trust deed in a case where no such formal instrument ever existed defeats the express language of Rule 17A(2)(b).
4.4. The Ld. AR further submitted that there has been no change in the objects or activities of the assessee and no adverse finding has been recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) regarding the genuineness of its charitable activities. It was accordingly submitted that the ratio laid down in the case of St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E) (supra) applies squarely to the facts of the present case.
5. The Ld. DR relied upon the observations recorded by the Ld. CIT(E) in the impugned order. It was submitted that the instrument creating the trust is relevant for examining its objects, governance and compliance with the statutory requirements prescribed u/s. 12AB of the Act.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.
6. At the outset, we note that the controversy arising in the present appeal is identical, both on facts and in law, to that considered by the Coordinate Bench in the consolidated order passed in ITA Nos.5679/Mum/2026 & 5684/Mum/2026 in the case of St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E), dated 05/08/2026. In the said decision, the Tribunal considered an identical objection raised by the Ld. CIT(E), namely, whether renewal of registration u/s. 12AB could be denied merely because the institution, though registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and recognised under the Income-tax Act over several years, was not constituted under a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association.
6.1. In the aforesaid decision, the Coordinate Bench examined the statutory framework of section 12AB of the Act read with Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and held that where a charitable institution has been created or established otherwise than under a written instrument, the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for refusing registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.
6.2. Rule 17A(2) makes a clear distinction between an applicant created or established under an instrument and an applicant created or established otherwise than under an instrument. In the latter situation, Rule 17A(2)(b) requires a self-certified copy of the document evidencing the creation or establishment of the applicant. The statutory rule thus itself recognises the existence of trusts or institutions which may not have been created by a formal written instrument.
6.3. In the present case also, the assessee had placed before the Ld. CIT(E) the documents pertaining to its registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and had specifically explained that no separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association existed. The impugned order itself records that the assessee had furnished the application made for registration as a public charitable trust as well as the certificate of registration granted by the Charity Commissioner.
6.4. We further note that in St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E) (supra), after considering identical documentary evidence and the provisions of Rule 17A(2)(b), the Coordinate Bench held that rejection of registration merely for absence of a formal trust deed could not be sustained where cogent documentary evidence evidencing the creation, establishment and continued existence of the charitable institution was otherwise available.
6.5. The Ld. DR has not brought to our notice any material distinguishing feature, either on facts or in law, so as to warrant a departure from the view taken by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision. The reasoning adopted by the Ld. CIT(E), the provisions of section 12AB read with Rule 17A involved herein and the principal ground on which the renewal has been rejected are substantially identical.
6.6. We also note that the rejection in the present case primarily proceeds on the alleged failure of the assessee to furnish an instrument of trust/Memorandum of Association. The Ld. CIT(E) ultimately concluded that the application was liable to be rejected for failure to submit the instrument of creation or establishment of the trust, or a document considered by him sufficient to evidence its creation.
6.7. In the case of St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E) (supra), the Coordinate Bench further observed that where there was no adverse finding regarding the charitable objects, genuineness of activities or fulfilment of the statutory conditions prescribed u/s. 12AB, refusal of renewal solely for want of a written trust deed was contrary to the scheme of section 12AB read with Rule 17A.
6.8. The facts before us being materially identical, we respectfully follow the aforesaid decision. The detailed discussion, reasoning and conclusions recorded by the Coordinate Bench in St. Stanislaus Institution v. CIT(E), ITA Nos.5679/Mum/2026 & 5684/Mum/2026, order dated 05/08/2026, are applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present appeal.
7. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the Ld. CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the assessee’s application for renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act merely on account of the absence of a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association, when the assessee had otherwise placed on record documents evidencing its creation, registration and continued existence as a public charitable institution.
7.1. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 29/03/2026 and direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21-09-2026.
