ANJUMANE HOOSHAMI SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6732/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 September 2026AY 2026-277 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's application by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) solely on the ground of selecting an incorrect clause (clause (iii) instead of clause (ii)) in Form No. 10AB was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee already possessed a valid regular approval under Section 80G and had filed the application for continuation. The mistake in selecting the clause was procedural and curable, especially since the assessee's intention to seek continuation of the existing approval was clear from the record. The Tribunal found support from several of its own previous decisions and those of other benches, which consistently held that such procedural defects should not lead to the rejection of an application if the assessee is otherwise eligible and the intention is clear. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) to treat the Form No. 10AB filed by the assessee as an application for renewal under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5). If any procedural correction was required in the electronic form, the CIT(Exemptions) was directed to permit the assessee to make such corrections. The CIT(Exemptions) was further directed to examine the application on merits and grant approval if the assessee satisfied the conditions under Section 80G, without rejecting it on account of the wrong clause selected in the original form. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The issue regarding Form 10AD was implicitly addressed by restoring the application to be treated as filed under the correct provision.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anjumane Hooshami Society, a charitable institution, had an existing regular approval under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, valid from Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. As this approval was nearing expiry, the assessee filed Form No. 10AB on August 8, 2025, seeking continuation of its approval. During the online filing, the assessee inadvertently selected clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) instead of clause (ii). The Assessing Officer (AO), the CIT(Exemptions), rejected the application solely on this ground, without making any adverse findings on the assessee's charitable objects, activities, or substantive eligibility. The assessee appealed this rejection to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and facts by passing an order on Form 10AD which is invalid and bad in law, thereby rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 80G of the Act? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and facts by rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G of the Act, considering the procedural defect in filing Form 10AB? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in law and facts by passing the impugned order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering it invalid? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) was invalid due to the incorrect form (Form 10AD instead of 10AB) and that the rejection of the Section 80G application was erroneous. The assessee contended that the selection of the wrong clause in Form 10AB was a procedural error, not a substantive one, and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The assessee relied on various ITAT decisions, including Rotary Charity Trust v. CIT(Exemptions), Subharma Charitable Trust v. CIT(Exemptions), Aatman Foundation v. CIT(Exemptions), Gandhinagar Ayyapa Pooja Samiti v. CIT(Exemptions), and ModasaEkda Visha KhadayataKovadia Kelavani Mandal v. CIT(Exemptions), which held that incorrect clause selection in Form 10AB is a curable defect. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

PER SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai vide order dated 29-Mar-2026 for the Assessment Year 2026-27. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in law and in facts in passing the impugned order dated i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →