Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a trust, had its application for registration rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) based on a technical error. The assessee had mentioned sub-clause (ii) instead of sub-clause (iii) in its application under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, despite having provisional registration.
Held
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a minor technical mistake and that substantial justice required remanding the case. The Commissioner was directed to decide the application afresh, considering the application as valid or treating it as filed under the correct sub-clause.
Key Issues
Whether a registration application under Section 12A(1)(ac) should be rejected for a minor technical error (mentioning sub-clause (ii) instead of (iii)) when the assessee otherwise qualifies.
Sections Cited
12AB(1)(b), 12A, 12A(1)(ac)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 12AB(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
M/s. Bhikha Behram Well Trust 2. At the outset, it is observed from the impugned order that the Ld. Commissioner despite of having knowledge that the Assessee is having provisional registration u/s 12A of the Act valid from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2024-25 and therefore provisions of sub clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, are applicable to the case of Assessee, still rejected the application filed by the Assessee simply on the technical and/or inadvertent mistake committed by mentioning the sub clause as (ii) instead of (iii) of the provisions of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by taking into consideration, the application already filed as valid in the eyes of law and/or by treating the same as filed under sub clause (iii) of the provision of section 12(1)(ac) of the Act. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025.