MBMA CHARITABLE,CUDDALORE vs. CIT(E), CHENNAI

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [“CIT(E)”], rejecting the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB seeking renewal/registration u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (i) the authority passing the order had no jurisdiction over the assessee; (ii) the application for registration had been properly made within the prescribed time;

ITA No. 2315/Chny/2026 (AY 2025-26) MBMA Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) :: 2 :: (iii) the assessee had inadvertently selected section 12(1)(ac)(i) instead of section 12(1)(ac)(vi) in the provisional registration application; (iv) the error was merely a clerical/technical mistake arising out of the selection available in the drop-down menu and did not affect the substantive eligibility of the assessee; (v) similar mistakes have been considered by the Tribunal in the cases relied upon by the assessee, including Sri Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayaki Amman Kumbhabhisheka Malar Kuzhu vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward in ITA No.978/CHNY/2023 and Mandava Foundation vs. ITO; and (vi) the provisional registration had already been granted and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(E) could not, after a lapse of about three years, treat the original registration as erroneous and reject the subsequent application as infructuous.

ITA No. 2315/Chny/2026 (AY 2025-26) MBMA Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) :: 3 :: was rendered infructuous. The application was, therefore, rejected. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee contended that the authority lacked jurisdiction, the application was filed within time, and the incorrect selection of section 12(1)(ac)(i) instead of section 12(1)(ac)(vi) in the earlier electronic application was only an inadvertent clerical/technical error arising from the online drop- down menu. It was argued that the mistake did not affect the assessee’s substantive eligibility and that similar technical errors had been considered favourably by the Tribunal in Sri Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayaki Amman Kumbhabhisheka Malar Kuzhu v. ITO (Exemptions), ITA No.978/CHNY/2023, and Mandava Foundation v. ITO.In the case of Sri Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayaki Amman Kumbhabhisheka Malar KuzhuTribunal held as under: 5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, it is noted that the assessee has simpliciter made a technical mistake in applying u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. It was informed to the Bench by the ld.counsel for the assessee that even now the assessee has filed fresh Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, which can also be considered. In our view, the same purpose will be served by adjudicating the same application. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(Exemption) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication, either considering the subsequent application of assessee u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act or he can call a fresh application from the assessee. In term of

ITA No. 2315/Chny/2026 (AY 2025-26) MBMA Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) :: 4 :: the above, matter restored back to the file of the CIT(Exemption). 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The assessee had obtained Form No.10AC dated 28.05.2021 under section 12A(1)(ac)(i). While considering the subsequent Form No.10AB application filed on 06.09.2025, the CIT(E) observed that the assessee had no earlier regular registration under section 12A/12AA and therefore held that the Form No.10AC had been wrongly granted. Consequently, the CIT(E) treated the subsequent Form No.10AB application as infructuous and rejected it. 6. We find merit in the assessee’s contention that the incorrect selection of the statutory clause was a bona fide technical error. A procedural mistake in an electronic application, by itself, should not defeat a substantive claim where the assessee is otherwise eligible and the application was filed within the prescribed period. The CIT(E) had not recorded any finding that the assessee was substantively ineligible for registration; the rejection was based primarily on the incorrect clause selected in the earlier online application. We further held that once Form No.10AC had been issued by the competent authority, the subsequent Form No.10AB application could not automatically be treated as infructuous merely by declaring the earlier registration erroneous. The assessee’s explanation regarding the inadvertent selection and its substantive eligibility ought to have been examined. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(E)

ITA No. 2315/Chny/2026 (AY 2025-26) MBMA Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) :: 5 :: was set aside and the matter was restored to his file for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the assessee’s explanation, determine its substantive eligibility under the applicable provision, and pass a speaking order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. We clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the ultimate eligibility of the assessee for registration under section 12A/12AB. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 11th day of September 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (प�ावती एस) (मनु कुमार िग#र) (PADMAVATHY S) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद$या/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %या�यक सद$य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे%नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated: 11th September, 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF SANDE Digitally signed by SANDEEP EP KUMAR Date: 2026.09.17 KUMAR 12:06:45 +05'30'