SHREE SARALAL NAGARSETH CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI
Before: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’bleShree Saralal Nagarseth Charitable Trust, 8/8 Reti Bunder Darukhana, Reay Road, Mumbai 400 010
Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, President:
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.
2. 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 2
ITA 4376/Mum/2025
Shree Saralal Nagarseth Charitable Trust
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) has noticed that section 12(A)(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act contemplates an application of a Trust or an Institution which is already having regular registration for five years and is seeking renewal thereof. The learned CIT(E) has therefore found that the application in the present case was filed under a wrong section, in as much as the applicant was seeking regular registration. 3. 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. 4. We have heard parties and perused record.
ITA 4376/Mum/2025
Shree Saralal Nagarseth Charitable Trust
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 this Tribunal in ITA No. 978/CHNY/2023 in the case of Sri Jeyamkonda 7. 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
ITA 4376/Mum/2025
Shree Saralal Nagarseth Charitable Trust merely on the ground of mentioning of the wrong section or clause. The Co- ordinate Bench at Chennai has taken a similar view. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application dated
01.10.2024 filed by the appellant shall be treated as one filed u/s.
12(A)(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The learned CIT(E) shall decide the application on its own merits and in accordance with law. The learned CIT(E) shall accord opportunity of hearing to the appellant while deciding the application. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the application so filed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10th September,2025. [Padmavathy S]
[Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
PRESIDENT
Mumbai, Dated : 10th September, 2025. SA
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT, Mumbai. 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ‘G’ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER
////
(