OMKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI V. CIT EXEMPTIONS MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1720/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Omkar Foundation appealing against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, which rejected their application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the grounds that the application was filed under an incorrect provision, specifically section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), which is applicable only to trusts seeking renewal of registration after five years. The foundation, having only provisional registration for three years, was deemed ineligible to apply under this section. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to address this issue before the rejection of their application and thus restored the matter for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312780 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.A. DHYANI
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT KUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1720/Mum/2025 Omkar Foundation, 11, Ratnadeep, 33 Swami Vivekanand Marg, Santacruz West, Mumbai-400054. PAN : AAATO0326R vs. CIT (Exemptions) 601, 6th Floor, Cumballa Hills, MTNL Building, Mumbai-400026. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Bharat Kumar, CA For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 23-04-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-Mumbai [„Ld.CIT(E)‟], dated 20-12-2024, wherein the assessee‟s application seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E). 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay in filing this appeal by 11 days as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parities and perusing the petition for condonation of delay, we find that there was a 2 ITA No. 1720/Mum/2025 reasonable cause for the delay in filing the present appeal and hence, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee foundation was granted provisional registration valid for AY. 2023-24 to 2025-26. Thereafter, it filed an application in Form-10AB, seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. It was submitted that in response to the various notices issued by the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee filed necessary submissions and provided necessary documentation. However, to the surprise of the assessee, when it received the order, it was found that the application for seeking registration was rejected on altogether different ground. It was submitted that the assessee was never allowed an opportunity before rejecting the application on the said ground and had an opportunity been granted, the assessee would have provided the necessary explanation before the Ld.CIT(E). In this regard, our reference was drawn to the findings of the Ld.CIT(E), which reads as under: “3. On perusal of the Form 10AB filed by the applicant it was observed that the applicant has applied under section 12A(1)(ac) (ii) which is valid only for trusts already having regular registration for five years and is seeking renewal of regular registration which is due to expire. The applicant, having provisional registration for three years, does not qualify to make the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii). Thus, the application for registration in Form 10AB filed by the applicant is not allowable on the ground of application filed under wrong section.” 4. It was submitted that as apparent from the above reasoning so adopted by the Ld. CIT(E), the application seeking registration has been granted merely for the reason that the assessee has moved an application under a wrong provision. It was further submitted that if at all, the application was moved under a wrong provision, it was merely a technical breach and basis the same, without even confronting the assessee, the assessee‟s right for seeking registration has been taken away for which it is 3 ITA No. 1720/Mum/2025 eligible otherwise. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee be allowed an opportunity and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh consideration. 5. The Ld.DR was heard who has relied on the order so passed by the ld CIT(E). At the same time, the Ld.DR didn‟t raise any specific objection where the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E). 6. After hearing both the parities and considering the limited prayer so made by the Ld.AR on behalf of the assessee, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) to allow the assessee to file a fresh application under the relevant provisions and to consider and decide the same as per law, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29-04-2025 Sd/- Sd/- [SANDEEP GOSAIN] [VIKRAM SINGH YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 29-04-2025 TNMM 4 ITA No. 1720/Mum/2025 Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai "