IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1025/MUM/2026 (Assessment Year:2027-2028)

Chemical & Alkali Merchants Association Relief Fund

501-504, Himalaya House, Palton Road, Near Times of India Press, Mumbai – 400001.

Maharashtra.

[PAN:AAATC3972B] …………. Appellant Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

601, 6^th Floor, Cumball Hill MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, ………….

Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400026. Maharashtra Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Parth Shah For the Respondent/Department : Shri R. A. Dhyani Date Conclusion of hearing : 02.04.2026 Pronouncement of order : 08.04.2026

O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 27/12/2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(E)’] whereby the application filed by the Assessee in Form No.10AB seeking approval under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] was rejected.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) ["CIT(E)"] erred in rejecting the Appellant's application for regularisation of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential approval under section 80G, without properly appreciating the statutory scheme, settled legal principles, and the material available on record.

2. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(E) erred in holding that the absence of an express irrevocability clause in the Trust Deed / MOA is prejudicial to the grant of registration, without appreciating that the Appellant is a public charitable trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, under which irrevocability is inherent by operation of law and the trust property is statutorily impressed with a permanent charitable character.

3. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that neither the settlor nor the trustees have any power under the Trust Deed or under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 to revoke the trust, dissolve it at will, or distribute its assets or surplus for private benefit, and that the trust assets are permanently dedicated to charitable purposes under the supervision and control of the Charity Commissioner.

4. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(E) erred in insisting upon the presence of an express dissolution or winding-up clause in the Trust Deed, while ignoring the comprehensive statutory framework under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which governs dissolution, cessation, vesting and application of trust assets and expressly prohibits any reversion of such assets to the settlor, trustees or any private individual.

5. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(E) erred in treating the Appellant's application as involving a "specified violation" under Explanation (g) to section 12AB(4) of the Act, without establishing any element of deliberate falsehood, conscious misstatement, or suppression of material facts, which alone could justify such invocation.

6. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(E) further erred in invoking Explanation (g) to section 12AB(4) without demonstrating how the application was "incomplete within the meaning of the statute, when all documents prescribed under Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 had admittedly been furnished by the Appellant during the course of proceedings.

7. On the facts and in law, the learned CIT(E) failed to appreciate that Form No. 10AB does not permit submission of the application unless the question regarding irrevocability is answered in the affirmative, and therefore the Appellant's response in Form No. 10AB was a bona fide declaration compelled by the statutory design of