SIDHARATH BAL NIKETAN SAMITI,JODHPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

At the outset, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 60 days in

The learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the facts stated in the respective condonation petitions and prayed that the delay be condoned. The learned Departmental Representative raised no objection to the condonation of delay.

We have considered the explanation furnished by the assessees. Considering the circumstances stated in the condonation petitions and

The material facts giving rise to the controversy are substantially common. Both the assessees had filed applications in Form No. 10AB on 30.06.2024 for conversion of their provisional registration/approval into regular registration under section 12A/12AB and regular approval under section 80G(5), respectively. While electronically filing the forms, however, the applications were made by selecting clause (ii) of the respective statutory provisions instead of clause (iii).

On examination of the applications, the learned CIT(E) noticed that clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) applies to an institution already registered under section 12AB where the period of such registration is due to expire. Likewise, clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) contemplates an institution or fund already approved under section 80G whose existing approval is due to expire. Since the assessees did not fall

In response thereto, the assessees specifically explained before the learned CIT(E) that they intended to apply for conversion of their provisional registration and approval into regular registration and approval, but owing to an inadvertent technical mistake while filling Form No. 10AB, clause (ii) was selected instead of clause (iii). They requested the learned CIT(E) to treat the mistake as a procedural error and to consider the applications under the appropriate clauses. The learned CIT(E), however, held that he had no power to condone or rectify the applications and consequently rejected the respective applications as infructuous.

Before us, the learned AR reiterated the aforesaid factual position. It was submitted that the nature and object of the applications were never in dispute and that the assessees had, even during the proceedings before the learned CIT(E), specifically brought the inadvertent error to his notice and requested that the applications be considered under the appropriate clauses. It was therefore prayed that the impugned orders

The learned Departmental Representative raised no objection to restoration of the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E) with appropriate directions.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material available on record. The controversy before us lies in a narrow compass. The applications have not been rejected upon examination of the objects of the respective assessees, genuineness of their activities or their substantive eligibility for registration or approval. The rejection is solely on account of the assessees having selected clause (ii), instead of clause (iii), while filing Form No. 10AB electronically.

Significantly, when the discrepancy was pointed out by the learned CIT(E), the assessees did not seek to maintain their applications under the incorrect clauses. On the contrary, they expressly acknowledged the inadvertent mistake and requested that their applications be considered under the appropriate clauses. Thus, the real

In the circumstances obtaining in these cases, we are of the considered view that the assessees' substantive applications ought not to be rendered infructuous merely because an incorrect clause was inadvertently selected in the electronic form, particularly when the error was brought to the notice of the learned CIT(E) during the proceedings themselves and a specific request for correction of the same was made. The interests of justice would, therefore, be adequately served by restoring the applications to the learned CIT(E) for consideration under the appropriate statutory provisions.

Accordingly, considering the common nature of the procedural error involved in all the four appeals, we set aside the respective impugned orders and restore the matters to the file of the learned CIT(E). The learned CIT(E) is directed to treat the applications filed by the assessees on 30.06.2024 under the appropriate provisions of section 12A/12AB and section 80G(5), as the case may be, having regard to the

The learned CIT(E) shall thereafter decide the respective applications afresh in accordance with law, after examining all other statutory conditions and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respective assessees. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the substantive eligibility of either assessee for registration or approval and all such issues are left open for adjudication by the learned CIT(E).

We make it clear that our direction is confined to removal of the procedural impediment arising from the incorrect selection of the clause in Form No. 10AB. We have not expressed any opinion on the substantive eligibility of either assessee for registration under section 12A/12AB or approval under section 80G(5). The learned CIT(E) shall examine all other statutory conditions independently and decide the respective applications in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The assessees

In the result, all four appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.