THE ALLOY STEEL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4004/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2027-28) The Alloy Steel CIT (Exemptions) Producers Room No. 601, 6th Association of India Vs. Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, Aspa Secretariat, Pedder Road, Mumbai- Mukand Limited Belapur, Thane, 400026 Maharashtra-400605 PAN/GIR No. AAACT5555E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Abhishek Choksy, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Yogesh Kamat, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 23.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”] in Form No. 10AD, whereby the application filed by the assessee under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") seeking registration under section 12AB came to be rejected.

2 ITA No. 4004/Mum/2026 The Alloy Steel Producers Association of India 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3 ITA No. 4004/Mum/2026 The Alloy Steel Producers Association of India into regular registration. The learned CIT(E), therefore, held that the application had been filed under the wrong statutory provision and rejected the same on that ground. While doing so, the learned CIT(E) observed that the regular registration already granted to the assessee vide Form No.10AC dated 28.05.2021 would continue to remain valid from A.Y.2022-23 to A.Y.2026-27 and further observed that the assessee would be at liberty to pursue the remedies available under the statute. 4. The learned Authorised Representative(AR) submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside since the rejection is founded solely upon an inadvertent typographical error committed while selecting the applicable clause in Form No.10AB. It was submitted that the assessee had at all times intended to seek renewal of its existing registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), but owing to an inadvertent clerical mistake, section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) came to be selected in the online application. According to the learned AR, such a technical mistake could not be made the sole basis for denying a substantive statutory benefit. It was further submitted that no show cause notice proposing rejection on this specific ground was ever issued and, therefore, the assessee had no opportunity to explain that the error was purely inadvertent. It was contended that the impugned order has thus been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned AR further submitted that the controversy is squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches.

4 ITA No. 4004/Mum/2026 The Alloy Steel Producers Association of India Reliance was placed on the decision in Rotary Charity Trust v. CIT (Exemption) [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 797 (Mumbai- Trib.)], wherein the Bench held that an inadvertent selection of an incorrect statutory provision while filing Form No.10AB could not be made the basis for rejecting the application and restored the matter to the file of the Commissioner (Exemption) for considering the application under the correct provision if the assessee was otherwise eligible. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Della Foundation v. CIT (Exemptions) [(2025) 173 taxmann.com 437 (Mumbai-Trib.)], wherein the Bench held that where the assessee was not confronted with the defect in the application, the Commissioner (Exemption) ought either to treat the application as having been filed under the correct statutory provision or grant an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the application before deciding the matter on merits. 6. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the findings recorded by the learned CIT(E). However, he fairly submitted that if the Bench was inclined to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee, he had no serious objection to such a course being adopted. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. We have also carefully gone through the impugned order and the judicial precedents relied upon by the learned AR.

5 ITA No. 4004/Mum/2026 The Alloy Steel Producers Association of India 8. The short controversy before us is whether the application seeking renewal of registration under section 12AB could have been rejected merely because, while filing Form No.10AB electronically, the assessee inadvertently selected section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of section 12A(1)(ac)(ii). 9. From the impugned order itself, it is evident that the learned CIT(E) has not doubted either the charitable nature of the objects of the assessee or the genuineness of its activities. The rejection has been made solely on the ground that the application was filed under an incorrect statutory clause. It is equally evident from the record that the learned CIT(E) did not issue any specific show cause notice proposing rejection of the application on this ground nor was any opportunity afforded to the assessee to explain that the incorrect selection of the statutory provision was merely an inadvertent typographical error. 10. We find that the issue is substantially covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches relied upon by the learned AR. In Rotary Charity Trust (supra), the Bench held that an inadvertent selection of an incorrect statutory provision while filing Form No.10AB cannot defeat the substantive claim of the assessee and restored the matter to the file of the Commissioner (Exemption) with appropriate directions. Likewise, in Della Foundation (supra), though arising in the converse factual situation, the Bench laid down the salutary principle that where the defect in the application is merely technical and the assessee has not been confronted with such defect, the Commissioner

6 ITA No. 4004/Mum/2026 The Alloy Steel Producers Association of India (Exemption) ought either to treat the application as having been filed under the correct statutory provision or grant an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the mistake instead of rejecting the application outright. 11. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid principles. Procedural provisions are intended to facilitate adjudication of substantive rights and not to defeat them. Once the materials available before the learned CIT(E) clearly disclosed that the assessee was seeking renewal of its existing registration, the application ought not to have been rejected merely because of an inadvertent selection of an incorrect statutory clause in the electronic form. At the very least, the assessee ought to have been confronted with the proposed defect and afforded an effective opportunity to explain or rectify the mistake before an adverse order was passed. Such an approach alone would be consistent with the principles of natural justice and the object underlying the provisions governing registration of charitable institutions. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, and respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the co-ordinate Benches, we set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned CIT(E) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to treat the assessee's application as one filed under the appropriate provision, namely section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), or alternatively permit the assessee to rectify the application, and thereafter adjudicate the application afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the

7 ITA No. 4004/Mum/2026 The Alloy Steel Producers Association of India assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's entitlement to registration and all issues are left open for consideration by the learned CIT(E).

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 30/06/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai