IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6320/MUM/2024 (AY 2024-25)

Kaushaliyadevi Atmaram v/s. CIT (Exemption)-Mumbai Singhania Charitable Trust Room No. 601, 6^th Floor, बनाम

45 & 46, Ideal Industrial Cumballa Hill, MTNL TE Estate, Senapati Bapat Building, Peddar Road, DR. Marg, Lower Parel, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATK4043P ..

Appellant/ Respondent/

अपीलार्थी प्रतिवादी

Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue by : Shri Himanshu Joshi Date of Hearing 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] dated 02.08.2024 rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”].

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION

1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Order for registration passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [Ld. CIT"] is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as -

(i) the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 ['the Act']; and (ii) the same is arbitrary and perverse.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

2. NATURAL JUSTICE

2.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the impugned order is bad in law and illegal, as the same is framed in gross breach of the principles of Natural Justice.

2.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above ground, the impugned order is bad in law and illegal as no sufficient and fair opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant.

2.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law. the order is bad in law and illegal on this ground as well.

WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE (ON MERITS)

3. REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION

3.1 The CIT erred in rejecting the application for registration made by the Appellant u/s. 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac) (i) of the Act on the following grounds-

(a) that the Appellant had not claimed exemption in previous years; and (b) that the Appellant had not fulfilled the stipulated conditions prescribed for filing application for approval in Form 10AB.

3.2 While doing so, the CIT erred in:

(1) Basing his action on surmises, suspicion and conjecture;

(ii) Taking into account irrelevant and extraneous considerations:

(iii) Ignoring relevant material and considerations as submitted by the Appellant:

(iv) Ignoring the fact that the initial application dated 27.08.2021 was correctly filed in Form 10AB and that it was mistakenly, only through oversight, that the section was selected as 10(23C)(iv) instead of section 12A (1) (ac) (i) of the Act;

(v) Ignoring the fact that the surrender of the approval earlier granted and making fresh application was only at the instance of CPC, Bengaluru.

(v) Ignoring the fact that there was no option available to make the application in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act as on 14.02.2024 and, therefore, the Appellant had filed the application in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s. 12A (1) (ac) (iv) of the Act on account of technical reasons on the part of CPC. Bengaluru.

(vi) Ignoring the submissions made by the Appellant and arriving at the conclusion that the Appellant was required to file Form 10AB u/s. 12A(1)(ac)

(vi)(B) of the Act.

3.3 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such rejection was called for.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2001. Pursuant to the changes in the registration regime for the charitable organizations brought through the Finance Act, 2020, all th