TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act came to be rejected. ITA No. 3769/Mum/2026 is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(E) under section 80G(5) of the Act rejecting the assessee's application for renewal of approval under section 80G filed in Form No. 10AB. 2. The facts leading to the present appeals, as borne out from the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(E), are that the assessee filed an application in Form No. 10AB on 20.09.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT(E) observed that the application was governed by Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which prescribes the documents required to accompany an application in Form No. 10AB. Upon verification, it was noticed that the application was incomplete and all the prescribed documents had not been furnished. Accordingly, a notice dated 13.11.2025 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite documents prescribed under Rule 17A(2). The assessee thereafter furnished its submissions and the material placed on record was examined by the learned CIT(E). 3. During the course of examination of the application, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;s application for renewal of approval under section 80G. The learned CIT(E) observed that the assessee had filed Form No. 10AB on 22.09.2025 seeking renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. It was noted that since the assessee's application for renewal of registration under section 12AB had been rejected, the condition prescribed under section 80G(5)(i) of the Act stood unfulfilled and, therefore, the application for renewal of approval under section 80G was also rejected vide separate order dated 26.03.2026. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee has preferred the present appeals before us by raising the following grounds: ITA No. 3768/Mum/2026 1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [Ld. CIT(E)] rejecting the application for renewal of registration u/s. 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) is bad in law, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT (E) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application without issuing any show-cause notice (SCN) or granting an opportunity of being heard specifically on the alleged violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant is simultaneously filing an appeal against the 12AB rejection before your Honours. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground(s) of appeal. 7. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ("AR") for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground that the assessee's application for renewal of registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 had been rejected by the competent authority. It was submitted that while rejecting the application, the competent authority under the FCRA had granted liberty to the assessee to submit a fresh application upon fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions. According to the learned AR, the learned CIT(E) was not empowered to step into the shoes of the competent authority under the FCRA and independently conclude that the assessee had violated the provisions of the FCRA. It was further submitted that the assessee had not received or accepted any foreign contribution governed by the FCRA for the last several years and, therefore, the rejection of renewal of FCRA registration had no bearing upon the genui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailable in Statute, without any prejudice." 11. A plain reading of the above findings shows that while the learned CIT(E) has correctly identified the three parameters which are required to be examined while considering an application for registration under section 12AB of the Act, namely, (i) the objects of the trust or institution, (ii) the genuineness of its activities, and (iii) compliance with other laws which are material for achieving its objects, the impugned order does not contain any independent examination or finding on the first two requirements. More importantly, even while dealing with the third requirement, the learned CIT(E) has not recorded any finding as to how the alleged non-renewal of FCRA registration had materially affected the assessee's ability to carry out or achieve its charitable objects. 12. The expression employed by the Legislature is not mere non-compliance with any other law. The statute specifically requires compliance with other laws which are material for achieving the objects of the trust or institution. Therefore, before invoking the provisions of section 12AB on this ground, it was incumbent upon the learned CIT(E) to examine whethe....