TEJIBAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 1044/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Tejibai Educational Society, a charitable trust operating a school, which sought registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The initial application for registration was rejected due to incomplete documentation and alleged violations of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, which prohibits the trust's income from being applied for the benefit of trustees. The trust filed appeals against the rejection of its applications. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the rejection process and remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706139 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002 SC 1201]
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RITESH MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K. GOPAL; AW
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Principle of natural justice; Charitable institution

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 Tejibai Educational Society, L-501, Greenwoods Society, M.V. Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093. Vs. CIT (Exemption), Room No. 601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill, MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. PAN NO. AADTT 1011 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. a/w Ms. Neha Paranjpe Revenue by : Mr. Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/06/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, dated 21/03/2023 and 17/12/2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(E)’] in relation to registration of the assessee trust under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee is a charitable trust engaged in the field of education through the operation of a school situated in Santacruz, Mumbai. The assessee was granted provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Income 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vide order dated 11.02.2022, which was valid up to Assessment Year 2024 Subsequently, on 29.09.2022, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking regular registration under Section 12AB of the Act. However, the application was rejected by the order dated 21.03.2023, on the following grounds: “3. On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the assessee, it was found that the application was not complete, and all required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2022 the assessee to furnish the complete set of d 17A(2). The assessee filed its submission on 01.02.2023.On perusal of the material on record, a showcause notice was also issued vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2022 the assessee to furnish further requirements to ascertain the genuineness of the activities carried out by the trust. 4. The Applicant has submitted its reply on 09.03.2023. On perusal of submission filed by the assessee it is observed that the trust is running named ‘New Model English High School’. One trustee Mr. Rajesh Khairajani is paid rent of Rs. 16,80,000/ other trustees are paid from the trust fund in the form of salary and professional fees. As th trustees it is in violation of Section 13(1 )(c)(ii). 5. In conclusion, this application for grant of registration stands rejected.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 761 days. In support of the application for condonation of Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee is a charitable trust engaged in the field of education through the operation of a school situated in Santacruz, Mumbai. The assessee was granted provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Income 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vide order dated 11.02.2022, which was valid up to Assessment Year 2024 Subsequently, on 29.09.2022, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking regular registration under Section 12AB of the Act. However, the application was rejected by the order dated 21.03.2023, on the following grounds:: “3. On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the assessee, it was found that the application was not complete, and all the documents required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2022-23/1048940116(1) dated 19.01.2023 requesting the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents mentioned in Rule 17A(2). The assessee filed its submission on 01.02.2023.On perusal of the material on record, a showcause notice was also issued vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2022-23/1050524718(1) dated 08.03.2023 requesting e to furnish further requirements to ascertain the genuineness of the activities carried out by the trust. 4. The Applicant has submitted its reply on 09.03.2023. On perusal of submission filed by the assessee it is observed that the trust is running named ‘New Model English High School’. One trustee Mr. Rajesh Khairajani is paid rent of Rs. 16,80,000/- for the premises out of the trust fund. Similarly other trustees are paid from the trust fund in the form of salary and professional fees. As the income of the trust is applied for the benefit of the trustees it is in violation of Section 13(1 )(c)(ii). 5. In conclusion, this application for grant of registration stands rejected.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee has preferred e present appeal. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 761 days. In support of the application for condonation of Tejibai Educational Society 2 ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee is a charitable trust engaged in the field of education through the operation of a school situated in Santacruz, Mumbai. The assessee was granted provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vide order dated 11.02.2022, which was valid up to Assessment Year 2024–25. Subsequently, on 29.09.2022, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB seeking regular registration under Section 12AB of the Act. However, the application was rejected by the ld CIT(E) vide “3. On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the assessee, it the documents required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. 23/1048940116(1) dated 19.01.2023 requesting ocuments mentioned in Rule 17A(2). The assessee filed its submission on 01.02.2023.On perusal of the material on record, a showcause notice was also issued vide DIN & Notice No. 23/1050524718(1) dated 08.03.2023 requesting e to furnish further requirements to ascertain the genuineness of 4. The Applicant has submitted its reply on 09.03.2023. On perusal of submission filed by the assessee it is observed that the trust is running school named ‘New Model English High School’. One trustee Mr. Rajesh Khairajani is for the premises out of the trust fund. Similarly other trustees are paid from the trust fund in the form of salary and e income of the trust is applied for the benefit of the 5. In conclusion, this application for grant of registration stands rejected.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee has preferred e present appeal. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 761 days. In support of the application for condonation of delay, reliance has been placed on a detailed petition where assessee has explained the sequence of events which occasioned the delay. The crux of the explanation is that following the rejection of the initial application, the assessee was advised to file a fresh application, which was also rejected on 04.06. upon professional advice, it was realized that the appeal against the original rejection order dated 21.03.2023 had not been filed, prompting the present appeal. The petitioner contends that the delay was neither deliberate nor actuated b due to an inadvertent omission in good faith, supported by legal advice. In support of the prayer for condonation, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC considerations must yield to the cause of substantial justice and that ordinarily, a litigant does not benefit by delaying legal remedies. The relevant part of the petition is reproduced as under: “5. Thereafter, the 29.09.2022 seeking final registration under section 12AB of the Act. The said application was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 21.03.2023 without appreciating the facts of the case and the submission 6. After considering the above order, the Applicant was advised to file a fresh application in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. While filing the said form, the Applicant, inadvertently mentioned a wrong application was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 04.06.2024 wherein a liberty was granted to the Applicant to file a fresh application before 30.06.2025 in view of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024. Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 delay, reliance has been placed on a detailed petition where assessee has explained the sequence of events which occasioned the delay. The crux of the explanation is that following the rejection of the initial application, the assessee was advised to file a fresh application, which was also rejected on 04.06.2024. Thereafter, upon professional advice, it was realized that the appeal against the original rejection order dated 21.03.2023 had not been filed, prompting the present appeal. The petitioner contends that the delay was neither deliberate nor actuated by mala fides but arose due to an inadvertent omission in good faith, supported by legal advice. In support of the prayer for condonation, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], wherein it was held that technical considerations must yield to the cause of substantial justice and that ordinarily, a litigant does not benefit by delaying legal The relevant part of the petition is reproduced as under: Thereafter, the Applicant filed an application in Form 10AB on 29.09.2022 seeking final registration under section 12AB of the Act. The said application was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 21.03.2023 without appreciating the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Applicant. After considering the above order, the Applicant was advised to file a fresh application in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. While filing the said form, the Applicant, inadvertently mentioned a wrong section. Therefore, the application was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 04.06.2024 wherein a liberty was granted to the Applicant to file a fresh application before 30.06.2025 in view of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024, dated 25.04.2024. Tejibai Educational Society 3 ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 delay, reliance has been placed on a detailed petition wherein the assessee has explained the sequence of events which occasioned the delay. The crux of the explanation is that following the rejection of the initial application, the assessee was advised to file a fresh 2024. Thereafter, upon professional advice, it was realized that the appeal against the original rejection order dated 21.03.2023 had not been filed, prompting the present appeal. The petitioner contends that the y mala fides but arose due to an inadvertent omission in good faith, supported by legal advice. In support of the prayer for condonation, reliance is placed Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. )], wherein it was held that technical considerations must yield to the cause of substantial justice and that ordinarily, a litigant does not benefit by delaying legal The relevant part of the petition is reproduced as under: Applicant filed an application in Form 10AB on 29.09.2022 seeking final registration under section 12AB of the Act. The said application was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 21.03.2023 without appreciating the facts of the case and After considering the above order, the Applicant was advised to file a fresh application in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. While filing the said form, the Applicant, section. Therefore, the application was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 04.06.2024 wherein a liberty was granted to the Applicant to file a fresh application before 30.06.2025 in view of CBDT Circular No. 7 7. The App 11.06.2024 in form vide order dated 17.12.2024. challenged by the Applicant before the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA 1044/Mum/2025 on 17.02.2 adjudication. 8. In the course of preparation for the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA 1044/Mum/2025, the tax professional realized that the Applicant has not filed the appeal against the rejection order dated 21.03.2023 befor was of the view that unless the order dated 21.03.2023 is set aside, the Applicant cannot get relief as it sought before the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA 1044/Mum/2025. 9. Hence, as per the advice sought from the tax profess Applicant is filing the appeal against the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Ld.CIT(E) on 18.06.2025. The appeal filed before the Hon'ble ITAT is barred by limitation by 761 days. 10. The Applicant submits that the delay in filing appeal was caused due to circumstances beyond my control and the same is not deliberate. There was a reasonable cause due to which the present appeal got delayed. The Applicant submits that he has always acted with due diligence to discharge its statutory duties. Thus, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 761 days in filing the present appeal in view of the above reasonable cause. 11. The Applicant relies on the observation of the Apex Court in the case 167 ITR 471 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisiti \"When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.\" 12. In view of the above submissions, the Applicant prays that your honor may to be pleased to consider the facts of the case and condone the delay of 761 days 4. We have considered the rival submissions and the explanation furnished by the assessee. including Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 7. The Applicant therefore, filed the fresh application on 11.06.2024 in form 10AB which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 17.12.2024. The said rejection order has been challenged by the Applicant before the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA 1044/Mum/2025 on 17.02.2025 which is pending for 8. In the course of preparation for the appeal before the Hon'ble ITA 1044/Mum/2025, the tax professional realized that the Applicant has not filed the appeal against the rejection order dated 21.03.2023 before the Hon'ble ITAT. The tax professional was of the view that unless the order dated 21.03.2023 is set aside, the Applicant cannot get relief as it sought before the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA 1044/Mum/2025. 9. Hence, as per the advice sought from the tax profess Applicant is filing the appeal against the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Ld.CIT(E) on 18.06.2025. The appeal filed before the Hon'ble ITAT is barred by limitation by 761 days. 10. The Applicant submits that the delay in filing appeal was caused due to circumstances beyond my control and the same is not deliberate. There was a reasonable cause due to which the present appeal got delayed. The Applicant submits that he has always acted with due diligence to discharge its statutory duties. s, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 761 days in filing the present appeal in view of the above reasonable cause. 11. The Applicant relies on the observation of the Apex Court in the ITR 471 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji. \"When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a deliberate delay.\" 12. In view of the above submissions, the Applicant prays that your honor may to be pleased to consider the facts of the case and condone the delay of 761 days and oblige.” We have considered the rival submissions and the explanation nished by the assessee. As enunciated in a catena of decisions Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi Tejibai Educational Society 4 ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 licant therefore, filed the fresh application on 10AB which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) The said rejection order has been challenged by the Applicant before the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA 025 which is pending for 8. In the course of preparation for the appeal before the Hon'ble ITA 1044/Mum/2025, the tax professional realized that the Applicant has not filed the appeal against the rejection order e the Hon'ble ITAT. The tax professional was of the view that unless the order dated 21.03.2023 is set aside, the Applicant cannot get relief as it sought before the 9. Hence, as per the advice sought from the tax professional, the Applicant is filing the appeal against the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the Ld.CIT(E) on 18.06.2025. The appeal filed before 10. The Applicant submits that the delay in filing appeal was caused due to circumstances beyond my control and the same is not deliberate. There was a reasonable cause due to which the present appeal got delayed. The Applicant submits that he has always acted with due diligence to discharge its statutory duties. s, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 761 days in filing the present appeal in view of the above 11. The Applicant relies on the observation of the Apex Court in the on Vs. Katiji. \"When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a 12. In view of the above submissions, the Applicant prays that your honor may to be pleased to consider the facts of the case and We have considered the rival submissions and the explanation s enunciated in a catena of decisions Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi [(1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC)] and 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cau must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation in order to advance the cause of justice, particularly where no element of wilful default, negligence, or mala fides is discernible. 4.1 Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the present appeal was occasioned by bona fide reasons and constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of law. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admit adjudication. 5. Turning to the merits of the matter, the principal grievance of the assessee pertains to the rejection of registration on the ground that payments were made to trustees, allegedly in violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The learn submits that such payments, including rent and remuneration, were made in furtherance of the trust’s educational objects and were below fair market value. It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) neither examined the matter o opportunity of being heard before arriving at the adverse finding. Additionally, it is argued that the question of violation of Section 13 pertains to the domain of assessment proceedings and not the stage of registration under Se Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 [(1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC)] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cau must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation in order to advance the cause of justice, particularly where no element of wilful default, negligence, or mala fides is discernible. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the present appeal was occasioned by bona fide reasons and constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of law. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admit Turning to the merits of the matter, the principal grievance of the assessee pertains to the rejection of registration on the ground that payments were made to trustees, allegedly in violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that such payments, including rent and remuneration, were made in furtherance of the trust’s educational objects and were below fair market value. It is further submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) neither examined the matter objectively nor granted an opportunity of being heard before arriving at the adverse finding. Additionally, it is argued that the question of violation of Section 13 pertains to the domain of assessment proceedings and not the stage of registration under Section 12AB. Tejibai Educational Society 5 ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [AIR 2002 SC 1201], makes it abundantly clear that “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation in order to advance the cause of justice, particularly where no element of wilful Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the present appeal was occasioned by bona fide reasons and constitutes “sufficient cause” within the meaning of law. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for Turning to the merits of the matter, the principal grievance of the assessee pertains to the rejection of registration on the ground that payments were made to trustees, allegedly in violation of ed counsel for the assessee submits that such payments, including rent and remuneration, were made in furtherance of the trust’s educational objects and were below fair market value. It is further submitted that the Ld. bjectively nor granted an opportunity of being heard before arriving at the adverse finding. Additionally, it is argued that the question of violation of Section 13 pertains to the domain of assessment proceedings and not the stage 5.1 We find merit in the submission that before invoking the alleged violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act as a ground for rejection of registration, the principles of natural justice required that the assessee be granted a fair and adequate being heard. Admittedly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) does not reflect any such opportunity having been granted. Further, the issue of actual application of funds for the benefit of specified persons may, in appropriate cases, be more during assessment proceedings rather than at the threshold stage of registration under Section 12AB, unless such violation is glaring and irrefutable on record. 5.2 In view of the above, we consider it just and proper to set aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) shall consider the submissions of the assessee afresh and decide the application in accordance with law, after affording an effect opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(E) shall also consider whether, at the stage of registration, the inquiry should be confined to the genuineness of the objects and activities of the trust as mandated under Section 12AB, and whether issues relati application of income fall outside the scope of registration. 5.3 Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 4147/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 We find merit in the submission that before invoking the alleged violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act as a ground for rejection of registration, the principles of natural justice required that the assessee be granted a fair and adequate being heard. Admittedly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) does not reflect any such opportunity having been granted. Further, the issue of actual application of funds for the benefit of specified persons may, in appropriate cases, be more appropriately examined during assessment proceedings rather than at the threshold stage of registration under Section 12AB, unless such violation is glaring and irrefutable on record. In view of the above, we consider it just and proper to set aside he impugned order dated 21.03.2023 and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) shall consider the submissions of the assessee afresh and decide the application in accordance with law, after affording an effect opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(E) shall also consider whether, at the stage of registration, the inquiry should be confined to the genuineness of the objects and activities of the trust as mandated under Section 12AB, and whether issues relati application of income fall outside the scope of registration. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 4147/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. Tejibai Educational Society 6 ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 We find merit in the submission that before invoking the alleged violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act as a ground for rejection of registration, the principles of natural justice required that the assessee be granted a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) does not reflect any such opportunity having been granted. Further, the issue of actual application of funds for the benefit of specified appropriately examined during assessment proceedings rather than at the threshold stage of registration under Section 12AB, unless such violation is glaring In view of the above, we consider it just and proper to set aside he impugned order dated 21.03.2023 and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) shall consider the submissions of the assessee afresh and decide the application in accordance with law, after affording an effective opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(E) shall also consider whether, at the stage of registration, the inquiry should be confined to the genuineness of the objects and activities of the trust as mandated under Section 12AB, and whether issues relating to application of income fall outside the scope of registration. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 4147/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The appeal in ITA No. 1044/Mum/2025 has been filed against rejection order dated 17/12/2024 of the assessee seeking registration under section 12AB of the filed as revised application under the extended window of the time period allowed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes rejected as not maintainable. appeal of the assessee against rejection of the original application for seeking regular registration while adjudicating the appeal in IT No. 4147/Mum/2025, thus the present appe adjudicated and rendered infructuous. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT No.4147/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal in ITA No. 1044/Mum/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (ANIKESH BANERJEE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/06/2025 Dragon Legal/Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 The appeal in ITA No. 1044/Mum/2025 has been filed against rder dated 17/12/2024, wherein the another application of the assessee seeking registration under section 12AB of the filed as revised application under the extended window of the time period allowed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes rejected as not maintainable. Since we have already restored the appeal of the assessee against rejection of the original application for seeking regular registration while adjudicating the appeal in IT No. 4147/Mum/2025, thus the present appeal is not required to be adjudicated and rendered infructuous. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT No.4147/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas l in ITA No. 1044/Mum/2025 is dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 30/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tejibai Educational Society 7 ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 The appeal in ITA No. 1044/Mum/2025 has been filed against in the another application of the assessee seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act, filed as revised application under the extended window of the time period allowed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), was Since we have already restored the appeal of the assessee against rejection of the original application for seeking regular registration while adjudicating the appeal in IT al is not required to be adjudicated and rendered infructuous. Accordingly, this appeal of In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.4147/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas l in ITA No. 1044/Mum/2025 is dismissed. /06/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Tej ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Tejibai Educational Society 8 ITA Nos. 1044 & 4147/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "