Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2025-26) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1718/MUM/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2025-26) APMH Foundation v/s. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai D 613, Neelkanth Business बिधम Room No. 601, Cumballa Park, Nathani Road, Vidya Hill, MTNL TE Building, Vihar West, Maharashtra- Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao 400086 Deshmukh Marg, Maharashtra-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAJTA1880H Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Mehul Shah रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 23.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 29 .04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 10.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2025-26.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of income-tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting application in A.Y. 2025-26 APMH Foundation form no. 10AB for renewal of registration under section 12AB alleging that the application was made under section 12A (1) (ac) (ii) in place of section 12A (1) (c) (iii), and in the process no opportunity of making correction in the application was provided.”
Since similar issue is involved in the both appeals and facts and circumstances are same, these are being disposed of by a common order. is being taken as a lead case.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application for Form 10AB seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act. However, as the assessee had been granted provisional registration till AY 2025-26, it was required to file an application under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). Instead, the assessee filed an application under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) which is valid for trust having regular registration for five years. Accordingly, the assessee’s application was rejected on this technical ground vide order dated 10.03.2025.
5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that while filing the application, the wrong clause was inadvertently selected. Ld. CIT(A) simply, on this ground, rejected the assessee’s application without affording any opportunity to it to alter/rectify the application. Ld. AR has submitted a plethora of decisions of the coordinate benches wherein it has been held that the application should not be rejected solely for wrong selection of the clause u/s 12AB or 80G. He has, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded A.Y. 2025-26 APMH Foundation back to Ld. CIT(E) with directions to decide the application afresh after allowing an opportunity to amend the application.
6. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has supported the order of Ld. CIT(E) on the ground that since the application was made under the wrong clause, it has rightly been rejected.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen that Ld. CIT(E) has given no opportunity to the assessee to rectify the inadvertent mistake and simply rejected the application on the technical ground without going into the merits. In several cases of this nature, the coordinate benches have consistently held that the application for registration should be decided on merits and should not be rejected merely due to the wrong selection of the relevant clause.
Specifically, reliance is placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Rotary Charity Trust v/s CIT, Exemptions in wherein it has been held that the assessee should be allowed to rectify the error and the Bench has directed Ld. CIT(E) to decide the application on merits.
Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench, we hold that the application should not have been rejected merely because the assessee had selected sub-clause (ii) instead of (iii) of Section 12A(1)(ac). Therefore, the order A.Y. 2025-26 APMH Foundation of Ld. AO is set aside and he is directed to pass a fresh order on merits after allowing the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect, if required.
10. This appeal relates to the rejection of the application for approval u/s 80G of the Act. For this issue also, the assessee had wrongly mentioned the sub- clause of Section 80G while filing the application. As the facts are identical to the above appeal, the decision therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order on merits after allowing the assessee to file the rectified application, if required.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025.