Registration Under Section 12AB Restored As Primary Proof Exists

Registration Under Section 12AB Restored As Primary Proof Exists Via Affidavit And Departmental Records

Issue

Whether CIT(E) can reject a Section 12AB registration application solely for lack of an original physical pre-2021 registration certificate when official departmental records and trustee affidavits establish its existence.

Facts

Application for Registration: The assessee, a charitable trust, filed an application for renewal/regular registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Rejection Ground: CIT(E) rejected the application solely because the assessee could not produce a physical copy of its original pre-01.04.2021 Section 12A/12AA registration certificate.
Secondary Evidence: The assessee submitted secondary evidence, including a trustee affidavit and a screenshot from the Income Tax Department’s own portal showing registration since April 3, 1975.
No Merits Defect: CIT(E) recorded no adverse findings regarding the charitable objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities, or compliance with other statutory conditions.

Decision

Rejection Set Aside: Matter remanded. The CIT(E)’s order rejecting the Section 12AB registration was set aside.
Direction to Grant Registration: In favor of Assessee. The CIT(E) was directed to grant Section 12AB registration to the trust, subject to formal verification of earlier registration records, provided all other statutory eligibility criteria are met.

Key Takeaways

Secondary Evidence Sufficiency: Rejection of a registration renewal cannot rest solely on missing original physical documents if official digital records or valid affidavits corroborate the trust’s historical registration status.
Substance Over Form: When there are no adverse findings regarding a trust’s charitable objects or the genuineness of its activities, procedural document deficits should not override substantive compliance.
Reliance on Portal Records: Data and records available on the Income Tax Department’s own official portal serve as valid secondary evidence to substantiate historical tax registrations.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘B’

Bai Hirabai Manchersha Gilder Charity Trust

Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions)^*

SAKTIJIT DEY, Vice President
and MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, Accountant Member

IT APPEAL No. 3824 (Mum) OF 2026

JULY 2, 2026

Madhur Agarwal and Yazad Bajan, Ld. ARs 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 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“the learned 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, which are reproduced below:

The Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Ld. CIT(E) erred in holding that the valid regular registration already obtained by the Appellant under Section 12AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 via Form No. 10AC dated 06.04.2022 (valid for five years from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27) is invalid. The conclusion that the existing registration “cannot be treated as valid in law” merely due to the non-furnishing of the old Section 12A registration certificate held prior to 01.04.2021 is arbitrary, unjustified, and bad in law.

The Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application under section 12AB(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without examining or expressing any adverse satisfaction regarding the objects of the trust or the genuineness of its activities. The rejection was based entirely on an alleged technical violation (absence of documentary evidence of the pre-2021 old regime registration) rather than the substantive merits of the trust’s charitable activities.

The Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without granting adequate relief or an opportunity to rectify the specific documentary defect, especially when the trust was already operating under a granted Form 10AC from CPC Bangalore, is against the principles of natural justice.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend all/any foregoing Grounds of Appeal.

Facts of the case

3. The assessee is a charitable trust. It filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 29.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, seeking renewal of its registration under section 12AB of the Act. The assessee had earlier obtained registration under section 12AB in Form No. 10AC dated 06.04.2022, valid for a period of five years from assessment year 2022-23 to assessment year 2026-27.

4. On verification of the application, the learned CIT(E) found that the application was not complete and that all the documents required to accompany the application had not been furnished. Accordingly, a notice dated 13.12.2025 was issued to the assessee requiring it to furnish the complete set of documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed its reply dated 02.01.2026 and furnished certain details and documents. On examination of the reply and the documents furnished by the assessee, the learned CIT(E) observed that the assessee had not furnished the earlier registration certificate issued under section 12A or section 12AA of the Act, or an approval under section 10(23C), held under the erstwhile regime prior to 01.04.2021. The learned CIT(E) noted that the assessee had been specifically called upon to furnish a self-certified copy of the earlier registration or approval, but the same was not produced.

5. The learned CIT(E) further observed that, under the amended registration regime effective from 01.04.2021, trusts or institutions already registered under section 12AA or approved under section 10(23C) under the old regime were required to apply for registration under section 12AB by filing Form No. 10A under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act. According to the learned CIT(E), registration in Form No. 10AC was granted by CPC, Bengaluru, without verification or human intervention. It was, therefore, held that an institution seeking renewal of regular registration was required to establish that it had possessed a valid registration under the old regime prior to 01.04.2021.

6. Since the assessee failed to furnish the earlier registration certificate, the learned CIT(E) held that the validity of the registration granted in Form No. 10AC dated 06.04.2022 could not be established. The learned CIT(E, therefore, concluded that the registration obtained by the assessee under section 12AB could not be treated as valid in law and that the assessee did not fulfil the basic eligibility conditions for seeking renewal of such registration.

7. The learned CIT(E) also observed that registration under section 12AB was required to be granted in terms of section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act after satisfaction regarding the objects of the trust, genuineness of its activities and compliance with other laws material for achieving its objects. In view of the alleged absence of documentary evidence relating to the earlier registration, the learned CIT(E) rejected the application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act vide order dated 28.02.2026. The assessee was, however, granted liberty to pursue the remedies available to it under the statute.

8. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the application filed by the assessee was rejected solely on the ground that the earlier registration certificate issued under section 12A of the Act was not furnished before the learned CIT(E). He submitted that the original certificate had been lost or misplaced and, therefore, the same could not be produced during the proceedings before the learned CIT(E).

9. The learned AR invited our attention to the affidavit of Shri Burzin Katrak, trustee of the assessee-trust, placed at page No. 15 of the paper book. In the affidavit, the deponent has affirmed that the original registration certificate issued under section 12A of the Act had been lost or misplaced and that, despite diligent search, the same could not be traced. It was further submitted that the deponent had been associated with the assessee-trust for several years and had earlier worked as its accountant. While applying for re-registration in or about March 2022, he had verified the registration status of the trust from the official website of the Income Tax Department. According to the affidavit, the departmental website reflected that the assessee was duly registered under section 12A of the Act.

10. The learned AR also referred to the screenshot of the official departmental portal annexed to the affidavit as Annexure “A”. The screenshot reflects the registration of the assessee under section 12A of the Act and records the date of registration as 03.04.1975. It was, therefore, contended that the non-production of the original registration certificate was attributable only to its loss or misplacement and that the existence of the earlier registration stood corroborated by the information available on the departmental portal.

11. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee-trust had been regularly filing its returns of income. He contended that, after considering the application and the material available on record, registration under section 12AB of the Act had already been granted to the assessee in Form No. 10AC dated 06.04.2022, valid from assessment year 2022-23 to assessment year 2026-27. He, therefore, submitted that the registration could not have been treated as invalid merely because the original old registration certificate was unavailable.

12. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E). He submitted that, even as on the date of hearing before the Tribunal, the original registration certificate issued under section 12A of the Act had not been produced for verification. The learned DR, however, did not raise any objection to the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh examination in the light of the affidavit and the supporting material placed on record by the assessee.

13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The limited reason for rejection of the assessee’s application is that the assessee failed to furnish the earlier registration certificate issued under section 12A or section 12AA of the Act under the erstwhile regime prior to 01.04.2021.It is not in dispute that the assessee had obtained registration under section 12AB of the Act in Form No. 10AC dated 06.04.2022, valid for five years from assessment year 202223 to assessment year 2026-27. The learned CIT(E), however, treated the said registration as invalid on the premise that the assessee had failed to establish the existence of its earlier registration under the old regime.

14. We also find that, while adjudicating the assessee’s application for renewal of registration, the learned CIT(E) has proceeded to hold that the registration already granted to the assessee under section 12AB of the Act in Form No. 10AC dated 06.04.2022 “cannot be treated as valid in law”. Once registration had been granted by the competent authority and continued to remain operative, the same could not be rendered invalid merely by making an incidental observation in the proceedings concerning renewal, without following the procedure prescribed under the Act for cancellation of an existing registration and without affording the assessee a specific opportunity of being heard on such proposed cancellation. Section 12AB separately provides for cancellation of registration upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions and after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned CIT(E), treating the subsisting registration granted in Form No. 10AC as invalid solely for non-production of the old registration certificate, cannot be sustained in its present form.

15. Before us, the assessee has placed reliance upon an affidavit of its trustee affirming that the original registration certificate had been lost or misplaced and could not be traced despite diligent search. The assessee has also relied upon a screenshot stated to have been taken from the official website of the Income Tax Department. The screenshot reflects that the assessee was registered under section 12A of the Act under registration with the date of registration recorded as 03.04.1975.

16. The aforesaid affidavit and the screenshot constitute material relevant to the issue as to whether the assessee possessed registration under section 12A of the Act prior to 01.04.2021. The said material requires verification from the records of the Income Tax Department. The fact that the original certificate is not presently available cannot, by itself, be conclusive where the departmental records may contain particulars of the earlier registration.

17. We further find that the learned CIT(E) has not recorded any adverse finding regarding the charitable objects of the assessee-trust or the genuineness of its activities. The application has been rejected principally for want of the earlier registration certificate. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the learned Departmental Representative has not objected to restoration of the matter, we consider it appropriate to remit the issue to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

18. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 and restore the application of the assessee to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) shall verify from the departmental records, including the records available on the Income Tax portal and any records maintained by the jurisdictional authorities, whether the assessee had been granted registration under section 12A of the Act with effect from 03.04.1975. The learned CIT(E) shall also consider the affidavit filed by the trustee, the screenshot annexed thereto, the registration granted in Form No. 10AC dated 06.04.2022, the returns of income filed by the assessee and such other documentary evidence as may be placed on record. The assessee shall be at liberty to furnish all supporting evidence, including secondary evidence, in support of the earlier registration.

19. After carrying out the necessary verification, the learned CIT(E) shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law. Since the learned CIT(E) has not pointed out any other deficiency in the application and has not recorded any adverse finding with regard to the objects of the assessee-trust, the genuineness of its activities or its compliance with the other statutory conditions, we direct the learned CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee under section 12AB of the Act, subject to verification of the earlier registration and provided the assessee is otherwise eligible in accordance with law.

20. Needless to state, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the matter is decided.

21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.