SHREE SARALAL NAGARSETH CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

By this appeal the assessee is challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (‘CIT(E)’ for short). By the impugned order the learned CIT(E) has rejected the application filed by the appellant seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act,1961 (‘Act’ for short) on the ground that the application is filed under a wrong section.

The applicant trust has been granted provisional registration vide Form 10AC on 30.05.2022 and was eligible to apply for regular registration u/s. 12(A)(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The appellant filed an application in Form 10AB on ITA 4376/Mum/2025 Shree Saralal Nagarseth Charitable Trust 01.10.2024 seeking regular registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. It appears that there was an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the appropriate section. The application was filed u/s. 12(A)(1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12(A)(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.

The learned CIT(E) issued a show cause notice to the applicant to explain the same. In response, the appellant filed its submission on 05.06.2025. The appellant acknowledged that due to inadvertent clerical error in title clause the application was shown to have been filed under section 12(A)(1)(ac)(ii) instead of section 12(A)(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The appellant sought withdrawal of the application as the appellant intended to file a fresh application under the correct section/clause of the Act. The learned CIT(E) by the impugned order have rejected the application.

We have heard parties and perused record.

It is submitted by learned AR that the learned CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application merely on account of an inadvertent error in mentioning section/clause. It was submitted that learned CIT(E) was obliged to look into the substance of the matter as the application was by the appellant who was already having provisional registration and was seeking regular registration. It is submitted that the label or the title of the application is not decisive. The learned AR has placed reliance on the order of Chennai Bench of in the case of Sri Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayaki Amman Kumbhabisheka Malar Kuzhu vs. ITO (Exemptions), in order to submit that in a similar situation this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for consideration.

The learned DR has placed reliance on the reasoning by the learned CIT(E). It is submitted that appropriate order be passed.

We have considered the submissions made. We find that the title under which the application is filed would not be decisive. The authorities have to consider the substance of the application. It is clearly borne out that the application was by the appellant which was holding a provisional registration and was thus seeking a regular registration, which can be sought by application u/s. 12(A)(1)(ac)(iii). As such an inadvertent error in mentioning the relevant section/clause as 12(A)(1)(ac)(ii) cannot entail the rejection of application