Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable society running a school and clinic, applied for renewal of provisional registration under sections 12A and 80G. The CIT(E) rejected the application solely on technical grounds, stating the application was filed under the wrong clause. The assessee contended that the genuineness of their activities was not doubted and prayed for consideration on merits.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application on technical reasons without deliberating on the merits. Citing previous ITAT decisions, the Tribunal held that such technical rejections are not appropriate. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) can reject an application for registration on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case, especially when the error is in the clause cited and not in the nature of the activity.
Sections Cited
12A, 12A(1)(aciii), 12(1)(ac), 12(1)(ac)(iii), 12(1)(ac)(vi)(B), 80G, 80G(5), 2(15)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
The above captioned two separate appeals by the assessee are preferred against 2 separate orders of the CIT(E), Chandigarh dated 25.9.2024 rejecting application for renewal of provisional registration
Page 1 of 6 [A.Y. 2017-18] Late Satish Mehta Vs.ITO u/s 12A(1)(aciii) and 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] and approval u/s 80G of the Act respectively.
Since common grievance is involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable society & running a charitable school named "SHIV GURUKULAM SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL" in Jind and affiliated with HBSE (Haryana Board). Further, it is also operating charitable clinic in Jind where free of cost treatment of patients is done. Thus assessee's activities are covered u/s 2(15) and it is eligible for being registered u/s 12A of the Act.
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the CIT(E) has erred in rejecting registration for mere technical reasons of application being under wrong clause and without deliberating on merits of the case. It is prayed to consider the merits of the matter and direct ld CIT(E) to consider assessee's applications on merits under either of the provisions of section 12(1)(ac) of the Act.
Page 2 of 6 [A.Y. 2017-18] Late Satish Mehta Vs.ITO
The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the ld. CIT(E) has not doubted genuineness of activities but only rejected registration for the reason that assessee had filed application in form 10AB u/s 12(1)(ac) (iii) while it was required to be filed u/s 12(1)(ac)
(vi) (B) as per amendment made from 1-10-2023 as assessee was a trust which had already commenced its activities. Consequentially, application u/s 80G has also been rejected.
The ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to similar facts where applications were rejected for being made under incorrect clause of section 12(1)(ac) of the Act where Benches of ITAT have held that CIT(E) is required to not reject application on such technicalities and directed CIT(E) to consider the application to be filed under correct sub clause of sec 12(1)(ac) of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on :
A. ITAT Delhi in c/o Raj Krishan Charitable Trust, ITA 1553/DEL/2024 B. ITAT Surat in c/o Shree Swaminarayan Gadi Trust Vadtal, ITA 369/SRT/2024 Page 3 of 6 [A.Y. 2017-18] Late Satish Mehta Vs.ITO
C. Honble Pune in case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas vs CIT, ITA 2295/PUN/2024 (Page 69-71)
The ld. counsel for the assessee prayed to direct CIT(E) to consider assessee's applications u/s 12A & 80G on its merits and deem the same to be filed under clause (vi) Part-B.
The ld. DR fairly conceded to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has simply rejected the applications merely on technical reasons being under wrong clause and has not deliberated on the merits of the case. The ITAT has on various occasions directed the ld. CIT(A) to consider the applications under correct sub-clause. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that the matter be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(E) is directed to rehear the applications after
Page 4 of 6 [A.Y. 2017-18] Late Satish Mehta Vs.ITO affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in and 5448/DEL/2024 are allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2025.