NIJ THAUN GUR BABA BUDHA SAHIB JI ,DELHI vs. CIT(E), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5939/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 June 20263 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a substantive right of the assessee cannot be defeated merely for a technical glitch. The Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back to his file for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider the required documents to be filed by the assessee. The reasoning was that the procedural mistake was inadvertent and bona fide, and the assessee was otherwise carrying on genuine charitable activities. The ratio decidendi is that technical defects in procedural filings should not lead to the denial of substantive rights, especially when the underlying activities are genuine. The issue of whether the assessee's activities are indeed charitable was not decided upon by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Nij Thuan Gur Baba, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi. The CIT(Exemptions) had rejected the assessee's application in Form 10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on a technical defect arising from the inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause while filing Form 10A. The assessee contended that this was a bona fide procedural mistake and should not defeat their substantive claim for registration, especially as they were engaged in genuine charitable and religious activities. The revenue, represented by the CIT-DR, could not controvert the facts presented by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on account of a technical defect in selecting an incorrect clause in Form 10A, is sustainable, despite the assessee carrying on genuine charitable activities? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 12A and Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B)). Assessee's contentions: The rejection was based on a technical defect arising from the inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause in Form 10A. This bona fide procedural mistake should not defeat the substantive claim for registration. If the correct clause (Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)) had been selected, provisional registration would have been issued, followed by a requirement to file Form 10AB for regular registration. Reliance was placed on the ITAT, Indore Bench decision in Shree Annapurna Kshetra Maheshwari Mahila Charitable Trust, and other ITAT decisions from Mumbai, Kolkata, and Indore Benches, which adopted a pragmatic approach in similar situations involving wrong selection of sections/codes. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the learned CIT-DR could not controvert the fact situation presented by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH-E : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, Ms. Kanishka Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 22.06.2026

Per Bench:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(Exemptions), Delhi dated 8" March, 2026 whereby the application of the assessee in Form 10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was rejected.

2.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have gone through the order of learned CIT(Exemption) passed under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the rejection of assessee’s application has been made solely on account of technical defect arising out of the inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause while filing Form No.10A. According to him, such a bona-fide and procedural mistake ought not to have defeated a substantive claim for registration, particularly when the assessee is otherwise carrying on genuine charitable and religious activities. He stated that if assessee had originally selected the correct clause viz., Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act, CPC would have issued only a provisional registration in Form No.10AC and thereafter assessee is required to file Form No.10AB for regular registration. In support of this, the assessee has relied on the decision of ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Shree Annapurna Kshetra Maheshwari Mahila Charitable Trust — 2026 (5) TMI 1765, order dated 30 April, 2026 and in particular, he drew our attention to paragraph Nos.7 & 8, which read as under:-

“7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of both sides. We have also considered the facts of these matters in the light of decision cited before us. We find that the Govt. introduced a new system of granting different types of registrations/approvals in section 12A/12AB and 80G through TOLA w.e.f. 01.04.2021. These different types of registrations/approvals can be broadly referred as ‘provisional’, ‘final’ and ‘renewal’. The provisions introduced by Govt. have multiple clauses/sub clauses and at times taxpayers face difficulties in understanding. Even the seasoned professionals, who appear for arguing cases before us, also find difficulties in comprehending the provisions and making smooth submissions. There are cases all over India being dealt by benches of ITAT concerning the issues of wrong selection of section/code. We find that in the undermentioned cases, the Benches of ITAT (including Indore Bench) have examined such situations and have provided appropriate relief to the assessees by adopting a pragmatic approach: (i) ITAT, Mumbai in) Rambha_ Charitable Trust, Mumbai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No. 5111/Mum/2024, order dated 29.11.2024 (ii) ITAT, Kolkata in North Eastern Social Research Centre Vs. C/T(Exemption), Kolkata, ITA No. 741/Kol/2024, order dated 09.07.2024 (iii) ITAT, Indore in Sir Seth Sarupchand Hukum Chand Charitable Trust Vs. C/T(Exemption), ITA No. 797/Ind/2024 (iv) ITAT, Indore in ITA No. 719/Ind/2024 (v) ITAT, Indore in Balaji Gau 887 & 890/Ind/2025

8.

Respectfully following the view taken by ITAT, Pune in Subhadra Foundation (supra) cited by Ld. AR and further decisions of various benches as noted above in preceding para, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of Ld. CIT(E) for a de novo adjudication after taking into 80G. The Ld. CIT(E) shall provide necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and the assessee shall file necessary documents. We expect the Ld. CIT(E) to hear all three cases of assessee together and dispose of judiciously without being influenced by earlier orders in any manner.”

3.

When these facts were confronted to the learned CIT-DR, he could not controvert the above fact situation.

4.

We noted that the facts are clear and we are of the view that merely for technical glitch, substantive right of the assessee cannot be defeated. Hence, we set aside the order of learned CIT(Exemption) and remand the matter back to his file for de-novo adjudication after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee will file the required documents before the learned CIT(Exemption) for his examination. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Decision pronounced in the open Court on conclusion of hearing on 22™ June, 2026. (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Date : 23.06.2026 VK.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →