Subsisting Section 12AB registration cannot be treated as invalid for non-production of earlier registration certificate.

By | July 24, 2026
0 Comment

Subsisting Section 12AB registration cannot be treated as invalid for non-production of earlier registration certificate.

Issue

Whether the Principal Commissioner / Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] is justified in treating a subsisting provisional/five-year registration granted under Section 12AB (in Form 10AC) as invalid merely due to the non-production of an earlier Section 12A/12AA registration certificate during renewal proceedings, without passing a formal cancellation order or recording any adverse findings.

Facts

  • Subsisting Registration: The assessee-trust held a valid, subsisting registration under Section 12AB granted via Form 10AC on May 28, 2021, covering Assessment Years 2022-23 to 2026-27.

  • Renewal Application: The assessee filed Form 10AB seeking regular registration/renewal under Section 12AB.

  • Rejection by CIT(E): The CIT(E) rejected the Form 10AB renewal application on the procedural ground that the assessee failed to produce its historical Section 12A/12AA registration certificate.

  • Implicit Invalidation: While rejecting the renewal, the CIT(E) treated the existing, subsisting registration in Form 10AC as invalid.

  • Absence of Statutory Cancellation: The CIT(E) did not pass an express statutory order cancelling the Form 10AC registration, nor did he record any finding that the trust’s objects were non-charitable, its activities were non-genuine, or that it had committed any specified violation.

Decision

  • Invalidation Held Unjustified: The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in treating a validly granted, subsisting registration under Form 10AC as invalid merely because the earlier registration certificate was not produced. (In favour of assessee)

  • Restoration of Registration: The Tribunal ordered that the subsisting registration granted to the trust in Form 10AC stands restored. (In favour of assessee)

Key Takeaways

  • Strict Adherence to Statutory Cancellation Mechanics: A valid, subsisting registration under Section 12AB (Form 10AC) cannot be casually declared “invalid” or “inoperative” during renewal proceedings; it can only be cancelled by following the dedicated procedure and establishing specified violations under Section 12AB(4).

  • Procedural Defaults Cannot Nullify Active Approvals: The non-production of historical legacy documents (like old 12A/12AA certificates) during a renewal application under Form 10AB is insufficient to invalidate a subsisting registration when the genuineness of the trust’s activities and objects remains unchallenged.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘B’
Ahmedabad Visha Shrimali Jain
v.
CIT (Exemption)*
SAKTIJIT DEY, Vice President
and MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, Accountant Member
IT Appeal No. 4464 (Mum.) OF 2026
[Assessment year 2027-28]
JUNE  30, 2026
Vinay U. Devi, Ld. AR for the Appellant. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. DR for the Respondent.
ORDER
Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member. – This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”], in Form No. 10AD, whereby the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act, was rejected.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Order Bad in Law and on Facts
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [“CIT(E)”] has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application for renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) has grossly erred in holding that the registration granted under section 12AB vide Form 10AC dated 28.05.2021 is invalid in law, merely on the ground that the Appellant did not furnish the old registration certificate under section 12A/12AA.
2. Non-Submission Due to Bona Fide Oversight
The learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the non-submission of the old registration certificate was purely due to inadvertent oversight and not due to absence of such registration. The Appellant in fact held valid registration under the erstwhile provisions. The learned CIT(E) ought to have verified the existence of earlier registration from departmental records instead of rejecting the application outright.
3. Failure to Grant Adequate Opportunity
The learned CIT(E) erred in not granting sufficient and meaningful opportunity to the Appellant to furnish the old registration certificate or clarify the position, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The learned CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that procedural lapses such as non-submission of a document cannot override substantive compliance, especially when the existence of the trust and its activities are not in dispute.
4. Failure to Exercise Proper Jurisdiction under Section 12AB
The learned CIT(E) has failed to examine the objects and genuineness of activities of the Appellant trust as mandated under section 12AB, and has instead rejected the application solely on a technical ground.
5. Long-standing Charitable Institution Ignored
The learned CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the Appellant trust was established on 31.07.2004 and has been carrying on charitable activities since then, and therefore its credentials and continuity could not have been disregarded on a mere technical lapse.
6. Improper Rejection Without Verification
The learned CIT(E) ought to have verified the existence of earlier registration from departmental records instead of rejecting the application outright.
7. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(E) ought to have granted an opportunity to furnish the old registration certificate or restored the matter for verification instead of rejecting the application.
8. General Ground
The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other and are mutually independent as well as interrelated.
3. Brief Facts are such that the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 22.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB. Pursuant to a notice dated 25.01.2026 issued under Rule 17A(2), the assessee furnished its reply dated 02.02.2026 along with certain documents. The learned CIT(E), however, observed that the assessee had not furnished the earlier registration certificate under section 12A/12AA of the Act, though it had been granted regular registration in Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021 for assessment years 2022-23 to 2026-27.
4. The learned CIT(E) held that, in the absence of proof of registration under the erstwhile regime prior to 01.04.2021, the validity of the registration granted in Form No. 10AC could not be established. Accordingly, treating the said registration as invalid, the application for renewal was rejected by order dated 12.02.2026. No specific adverse finding was, however, recorded regarding the charitable nature of the assessee’s objects or the genuineness of its activities.
5. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the sole basis for rejection of the application was the alleged failure of the assessee to furnish the registration certificate issued under section 12AA of the Act prior to 01.04.2021. He invited our attention to paragraphs 3.4 and 5 of the impugned order and submitted that the learned CIT(E) had treated the regular registration granted to the assessee in Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021 as invalid only because the earlier registration certificate had not been produced.
6. The learned AR further invited our attention to the copy of the registration certificate dated 24.02.2005 placed at page No. 14 of the paper book. It was submitted that the said certificate established that the assessee was duly registered under the erstwhile registration regime much prior to 01.04.2021. He, therefore, contended that the very foundation on which the learned CIT(E) had treated the registration granted in Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021 as invalid did not survive.
7. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the impugned order. He particularly invited our attention to paragraphs 3.2 to 5 thereof and submitted that the assessee was required to establish that it possessed a valid registration under section 12AA of the Act prior to 01.04.2021. Since the assessee had failed to furnish the earlier registration certificate despite a specific opportunity granted by the learned CIT(E), the application was rightly rejected.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short controversy before us is whether the application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act could have been rejected on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce the registration certificate issued under section 12A or section 12AA of the Act prior to 01.04.2021.It is an admitted position that the assessee was granted regular registration under section 12AB of the Act in Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021, valid from assessment year 2022-23 to assessment year 2026-27. The learned CIT(E), however, treated the said registration as invalid on the ground that the assessee had not produced the earlier registration certificate issued under the erstwhile registration regime.
9. Before us, the learned AR has placed reliance upon the registration certificate dated 24.02.2005, a copy whereof is stated to be placed at page No. 14 of the paper book. The said document, if found to be genuine and relatable to the assessee, would have a direct and material bearing upon the very basis on which the application was rejected.
10. We further find that the learned CIT(E) has not recorded any specific adverse finding regarding the charitable nature of the objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities. The rejection is substantially founded upon the non-production of the earlier registration certificate and the consequential conclusion that the registration granted in Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021 was invalid.
11. In our considered view, when the assessee has now produced a copy of the registration certificate dated 24.02.2005, the ends of justice would be met by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) for the limited purpose of verifying the authenticity and validity of the said certificate. A substantive claim for registration ought not to be rejected merely on account of the earlier non-production of a document, particularly when the document is now stated to be available and is capable of verification from the departmental records.
12. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 and restore the application to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) is directed to verify the registration certificate dated 24.02.2005 placed by the assessee at page No. 14 of the paper book, as well as the corresponding departmental records. If, upon verification, it is found that the assessee was duly registered under section 12A or section 12AA of the Act prior to 01.04.2021, and the assessee is otherwise eligible for renewal under the applicable provisions of the Act, the learned CIT(E) shall grant registration under section 12AB of the Act in accordance with law.
13. Since no specific adverse finding has been recorded in the impugned order regarding the charitable nature of the objects or the genuineness of the activities of the assessee, the learned CIT(E) shall not reject the application merely by reiterating the reason contained in the impugned order concerning nonproduction of the earlier registration certificate. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall furnish such documents and explanations as may reasonably be required for verification.
14. Before parting, we also consider it appropriate to observe that the course adopted by the learned CIT(E) in treating the registration already granted to the assessee in Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021 as invalid is not contemplated under the statutory scheme. A subsisting registration cannot be rendered invalid or non est merely by making a collateral observation while disposing of an application for renewal. If the learned CIT(E) was of the view that the existing registration was liable to be brought to an end, it was incumbent upon him to invoke the specific statutory provisions governing cancellation and to pass an express order in writing after following the procedure and safeguards prescribed under the Act. In the case of an application made under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B)(I) permits rejection of the application and cancellation of the existing registration only after recording the requisite satisfaction and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Further, section 12AB(4) separately provides a mechanism for cancellation of registration upon the occurrence of a specified violation, which requires the competent authority to call for the relevant documents or information, conduct such inquiry as may be necessary, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a specific order in writing. In the present case, no express order cancelling the registration granted in Form No. 10AC has been passed, nor has any specific adverse finding been recorded regarding the objects of the assessee, the genuineness of its activities or the occurrence of any specified violation. The learned CIT(E), therefore, was not justified in treating the subsisting registration as invalid merely on account of the nonproduction of the earlier registration certificate.
15. In view of the above, grounds Nos. 1 to 7 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 8, being general in nature, does not require separate adjudication.
16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.