NISHAD FOUNDATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PEDDER ROAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 991/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2025-26Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ( (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's mistake, acknowledging it as an unintentional typographic error that would cause prejudice. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the assessee's application and claim on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for registration under section 80G(5)(ix) but inadvertently selected clause (ii) instead of clause (iii). The CIT(E) rejected the application due to this clerical error without granting an opportunity to rectify it.

What were the issues?

Whether a clerical error in selecting a sub-clause for an application under Section 80G(5)(ix) should lead to outright rejection without an opportunity to rectify.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)(ix),Section 12A,Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Ms. Asha Sonawne
For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, CIT D.R
Hearing: 01.05.2025Pronounced: 15.05.2025

Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 16/12/2024 passed by Ld.CIT(E), Mumbai for assessment year 2025-26 on following grounds of appeal : “ The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai has erred in rejecting application made under proviso to clause (ix) of section 80. G (5) on clerical error without allowing opportunity to the Assessee to rectify the error and without considering over all application”

A.Y. 2025-26 Nishad Foundation 2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee while filing application in Form 10AB it choose clause (ii) to section 80G(5)(ix) instead of clause (iii) to section 80G(5)(ix). He submitted that, the assessee may be granted one opportunity to rectify this mistake as assessee already got registration u/s.12A till A.Y. 2026-27.

3.

It is submitted that, the above typographic mistake was unintentional and not considering the application under correct sub clause would put assessee into great prejudice.

4.

The Ld.DR though objected, could not controvert the submissions of the assessee.

We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of record placed before us.

5.

Considering the submissions of the Ld.AR we deem it just in proper to condone the mistake committed by the assessee while applying for registration by making a selection of wrong section code u/s.80G(5). We direct the Ld.CIT(E) to consider the application of the assessee and to consider its claim in accordance with law.

6.

Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/05/2025

More judgments on Section 12A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →