DELLA FOUNDATION,DELLA TOWERS PARSI COLONY vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CUMBALLA HILL MTNL TE BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD

1. 1. These are two appeals preferred by the Assessee which were heard together and are being disposed of by way of a common order.

On perusal of the From 10AB filed by the assessee it was observed that the assessee has applied under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) which is valid only for trusts already having regular registration for five years and is seeking renewal of regular registration which is due to expire. The assessee, having provisional registration for three years, does not qualify to make the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii).Thus, the application for registration in Form 10AB filed by the assessee is not allowable on the ground of application filed under wrong section.

In conclusion this application stands rejected.” (Emphasis Supplied) 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal.

During the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Assessment Year: 2024-25 Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee had applied for renewal of provisional registration. However, the aforesaid application was rejected vide Order, dated 21/11/2024, on the ground that the renewal application was made under wrong provision [i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)] which was applicable to charitable organization already holding regular registration and seeking renewal of the same. The grievance of the Assessee is that the Assessee was not put to notice about the defect in the application and the order rejecting application was passed without giving any opportunity to the Assessee. Per contra, the it was submitted by the Learned Departmental Representative that since the Assessee had made application under incorrect provision, the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application. In rejoinder, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that it was on account of inadvertent error that incorrect provision was mentioned. It was submitted that all the documents and details furnished by the Assessee support the contention of the Assessee that the application was sought to be made under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.

We have considered the rival submission, perused the material on record and examined the position in law.

It is admitted position that the Assessee was previously granted provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Act. It is the case of the Assessee that on consideration the documents and details filed along with the application it can be seen that the application was intended to be made under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. However, since the Assessee was not confronted with defect in the application, the Assessee was not able to explain before the Learned CIT(E) that an unintentional mistake had occurred while filing the application. We find merit in the aforesaid Assessment Year: 2024-25 contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the Assessee to set out a case for renewal of registration in terms of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the Order, dated 21/11/2024, passed by the Learned CIT(E) and restore the application filed by the Assessee to its original number. The Learned CIT(E) is directed to either treat the application filed by the Assessee as application filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act or grant opportunity to the Assessee to file rectified application. It is clarified that the Learned CIT(E) would be at liberty to decide upon the merits of the application as per law after granting the Assessee an opportunity to make submission and file documents/details in support of the application. All rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open.

In terms of paragraph 7 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Next we would first take up ITA No.373/Mum/2025. We find that the aforesaid appeal has also been preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 21/11/2024, passed by the CIT(E).

During the course of hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that this is a duplicate appeal and the same be dismissed as not pressed. It was submitted that the for the purpose of removing the defects marked by the registry, a complete set was filed again as a new appeal inadvertently. The Learned Departmental Representative did not raised any objections. Therefore, in view of the fact that we have adjudicated hereinabove, and taking into Assessment Year: 2024-25 consideration the statement made by the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee, the present appeal is dismissed as being a duplicate appeal.

In conclusion, is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.373/Mum/2025 is dismissed.