SANSKARDHAM NANDAN,MEHSANA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2980/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 October 2026AY 2025-263 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanskardham Nandan, filed an appeal against the order dated 26.06.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)), Ahmedabad. The CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application for renewal of registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based solely on the ground that the assessee had inadvertently ticked clause 12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of clause (ii) in the prescribed form for renewal. The CIT(E) held that his office could not suo moto change the clause under which the application was made. The assessment year in question is 2025-26.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the ground of the assessee inadvertently mentioning the incorrect sub-clause (12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(ii)). The Tribunal observed that there had been significant confusion and misunderstanding regarding the interpretation of Section 12A provisions after the amendments effective from 01.04.2021, leading to the issuance of CBDT circulars and extensions of time for applications. The Tribunal noted that Co-ordinate Benches have consistently held that assessees should not be punished for bona fide mistakes, especially when the entire facts were before the authority and the assessee was otherwise eligible. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) was aware of the assessee's eligibility but felt helpless due to the clerical error. The impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to treat the application as moved under the relevant clause 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and decide it afresh on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for renewal of registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground of a clerical error in mentioning the wrong sub-clause (12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(ii)) in the application form? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the rejection was based on a bona fide mistake in selecting the correct clause, especially considering the confusion surrounding amendments to Section 12A effective from 01.04.2021. The assessee relied on the principle that litigants should not be punished for genuine errors and that the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal have held that assessees should not be penalized for mistakes in mentioning the relevant clause due to complex provisions and discrepancies in prescribed forms. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue. However, the order of the CIT(E) indicates that the revenue's stance was that the application was made under a specific clause and the CIT(E) could not suo moto alter it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI R. GOVINDARAJAN

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate, Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT. DR
For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT. DR
Pronounced: 16/10/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”), Ahmedabad dated 26.06.2026 rejecting the application of the assessee for renewal of registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

In this case, the assessee applied for registration u/s. 12A of the Act, which was granted to the assessee-trust. The assessee, thereafter, applied for renewal of registration to the Ld. CIT(E). However, the assessee inadvertently

I.T.A. No.29

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 12A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →