Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJGOPAL & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [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(E)”] rejecting approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 16.10.2024.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“General The Assessing Officer has erred not considering that Assessee Trust already had an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions of 80G and hence the 80G approval should not have been rejected.
2. Ground of objection Based on law. 2. Ground of objection Based on law. 2.1 The rejection of the application under Section 8 2.1 The rejection of the application under Section 80G(5) is incorrect and 0G(5) is incorrect and unlawful. 2.2 The rejection of the application under Section 80G(5) should be 2.2 The rejection of the application under Section 80G(5) should be 2.2 The rejection of the application under Section 80G(5) should be reconsidered based on merits. reconsidered based on merits. 2.3 The order passed by the CIT(E) is alleged to be bad in law and contrary to 2.3 The order passed by the CIT(E) is alleged to be bad in law and contrary to 2.3 The order passed by the CIT(E) is alleged to be bad in law and contrary to legal provisions.
3. Additional Grounds 3. Additional Grounds The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in ssessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in ssessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds at or before or at any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds at or before or at any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds at or before or at the time of appeal, to decide the application according to law the time of appeal, to decide the application according to law.”
Facts in brief in brief are that the assessee a trust filed an application in filed an application in Form 10AB under clause(iv)(B) of 1st proviso to section 80G(5) seeking Form 10AB under clause(iv)(B) of 1 proviso to section 80G(5) seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act. approval u/s 80G of the Act. However, the same was rejected by the the same was rejected by the ld.CIT(Exemption) on the ground that as the trust was already ld.CIT(Exemption) on the ground that as the trust was already ld.CIT(Exemption) on the ground that as the trust was already incorporated on 24.02.2006 and had claimed exemption, it was not correct in filing Form it was not correct in filing Form 10AB under clause(iv)(B) which was meant for those trust which did not claim 10AB under clause(iv)(B) which was meant for those trust which did not claim 10AB under clause(iv)(B) which was meant for those trust which did not claim exemption in Previous years. exemption in Previous years. Therefore, he rejected the application. he rejected the application.
In the course of 3. In the course of hearing before us, the ld. Authorised Representative Authorised Representative has submitted that the as ssessee trust already had an 80G approval under the already had an 80G approval under the erstwhile erstwhile erstwhile provisions provisions provisions dated dated dated 15/12/2009 15/12/2009 15/12/2009 bearing bearing bearing reference reference reference no no no DIT(E)/MC/80G/2784/2009 DIT(E)/MC/80G/2784/2009-10.Under the new provisions pertaining to 8 10.Under the new provisions pertaining to 80G, the new provisional registration was received vide registration number the new provisional registration was received vide registration number the new provisional registration was received vide registration number AAATJ8684KF20212 dated dated 24-09-2021. The said provisional registration 2021. The said provisional registration was from 24-09-2021 to AY 2024 2021 to AY 2024-2025. Renewal was to be made prior to the to be made prior to the end of the assessment year till which it was valid. end of the assessment year till which it was valid. However, the Assessee Trust However, the Assessee Trust realized this late and filed application after the end of the relevant assessment realized this late and filed application after the end of the relevant assessment realized this late and filed application after the end of the relevant assessment year. In the application under 10AB which was lodged on 25 In the application under 10AB which was lodged on 25 In the application under 10AB which was lodged on 25-May-2024, the section for registration which was selected was 14A which was selected was 14A-Sub-clause (B) of clause clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G, instead of clause (iii) of section (5) of section 80G, instead of clause (iii) of the said section since period of the provisional registration had already since period of the provisional registration had already since period of the provisional registration had already expired. There was an extension provided by CBDT for filing the applications as an extension provided by CBDT for filing the applications as an extension provided by CBDT for filing the applications of Trust upto 30 June 2024. The said form was filed on 25 May 2024. The of Trust upto 30 June 2024. The said form was filed on 25 May 2024. The of Trust upto 30 June 2024. The said form was filed on 25 May 2024. The assesse authorised representative appeared before the Officer with a prayer to assesse authorised representative appeared before the Officer with a prayer to assesse authorised representative appeared before the Officer with a prayer to consider the inadvertent error and process t consider the inadvertent error and process the same as under clause (iii) of the he same as under clause (iii) of the said section. The officer however did not consider the same and passed the said section. The officer however did not consider the same and passed the said section. The officer however did not consider the same and passed the order for rejection of 80G application as the application was filed under order for rejection of 80G application as the application was filed under order for rejection of 80G application as the application was filed under section 80G(5) (iv) (B) and no such change was possible in the system section 80G(5) (iv) (B) and no such change was possible in the system section 80G(5) (iv) (B) and no such change was possible in the system. It was pleaded that the mistake was inadvertent and occurred due to technical glitch. pleaded that the mistake was inadvertent and occurred due to technical glitch. pleaded that the mistake was inadvertent and occurred due to technical glitch.
In this regard, she also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of she also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of she also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of Pune ITAT on the case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(2025) 170 Pune ITAT on the case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(2025) 170 Pune ITAT on the case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(2025) 170 Taxmann.com 720(Pune). (Pune).Per Contra, the ld.DR has vehemently relied on the the ld.DR has vehemently relied on the order of the Revenue authorities. order of the Revenue authorities.
We have carefully perused the facts of the case, considered rival We have carefully perused the facts of the case, considered rival We have carefully perused the facts of the case, considered rival submission and also the provisions of law in submission and also the provisions of law in this regard. this regard. We find that admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application under 10AB which was lodged on 25- -May-2024 but the section for registration the section for registration which was selected was 14A-Sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G, instead of clause (iii) of the said section n 80G, instead of clause (iii) of the said section due to inadvertent due to inadvertent error in the application. It is not disputed that the assessee trust the assessee trust already had an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions. an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions. Under the new provisions Under the new provisions pertaining to 80G, the new provisional registration was received vide the new provisional registration was received vide the new provisional registration was received vide registration number AAATJ8684KF20212 registration number AAATJ8684KF20212 dated 24-09-2021 and t 2021 and the said provisional registration was from 24 provisional registration was from 24-09-2021 to AY 2024- -2025.In such a situation, the only mistake committed by the assessee was mentio the only mistake committed by the assessee was mentio the only mistake committed by the assessee was mentioning the relevant clause(iii) in place of clause(iv).Evidently, relevant clause(iii) in place of clause(iv).Evidently, it is a typographical it is a typographical, inadvertent but a bonafide mistake only bonafide mistake only which is subject to correction. which is subject to correction.
4.1 We have also gone through the cited decision of hon We have also gone through the cited decision of hon’ ’ble Pune Bench in the case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas f Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(supra) where also such (supra) where also such a technical mistake was involved in the case of a trust. a technical mistake was involved in the case of a trust. The hon The hon’ble Bench set aside and restored the matter back to the ld.CIT(Exemption).Relevant parts of aside and restored the matter back to the ld.CIT(Exemption).Relevant parts of aside and restored the matter back to the ld.CIT(Exemption).Relevant parts of the order are extracted below for re the order are extracted below for ready reference:
“Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust applied for registration in Form Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust applied for registration in Form Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust applied for registration in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B) of the IT Act on 28.03.2024. With a view to verify the ITEM(B) of the IT Act on 28.03.2024. With a view to verify the ITEM(B) of the IT Act on 28.03.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirement of genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirement of genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirement of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued on 21.05.2024 through ITBA porta objects, a notice was issued on 21.05.2024 through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to l requesting the assessee to upload various information detailed in notice. In compliance to the above notice, desired upload various information detailed in notice. In compliance to the above notice, desired upload various information detailed in notice. In compliance to the above notice, desired information was furnished by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found that the information was furnished by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found that the information was furnished by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found that the application was furnished u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the IT Act and the assessee trust has claimed of the IT Act and the assessee trust has claimed exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, therefore said provisions of of the IT Act, therefore said provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) is not applicable in the assessee's case, accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected applicable in the assessee's case, accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected applicable in the assessee's case, accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected by him. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. by him. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. by him. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Ld. AR appearing from the 3. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the rejection side of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the rejection order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was submitted that due to a order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was submitted that due to a order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was submitted that due to a typographical/inadvertent error the application was filed typographical/inadvertent error the application was filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) whereas the assessee was required to file application assessee was required to file application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act since it was an old trust of the IT Act since it was an old trust already registered u/s 12 of the IT Act and was required to get registration under the new of the IT Act and was required to get registration under the new of the IT Act and was required to get registration under the new provisions of the IT Act. It was further . It was further submitted that application was filed by i submitted that application was filed by its own without the help of any tax professional and due to this the above mistake occurred. Ld. Counsel further help of any tax professional and due to this the above mistake occurred. Ld. Counsel further help of any tax professional and due to this the above mistake occurred. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee trust is genuine and was already registered submitted that the assessee trust is genuine and was already registered u/s 12A u/s 12A w.e.f. 09.07.2002. Accordingly, it was submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have Accordingly, it was submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have Accordingly, it was submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have allowed further opportunity to the assessee trust to furnish reply in this regard. But, Ld. CIT, allowed further opportunity to the assessee trust to furnish reply in this regard. But, Ld. CIT, allowed further opportunity to the assessee trust to furnish reply in this regard. But, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in not providing reasonable opportunity Exemption, Pune erred in not providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit the to the assessee to submit the clarification in this regard. clarification in this regard. In support of the above contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision In support of the above contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Swaminaray Shree Swaminarayan Gadi Trust vs. CIT, [2024] 162 taxmann.com 772 (Surat , [2024] 162 taxmann.com 772 (Surat-Trib.) order dated 13.05.2024 wherein under identical Trib.) order dated 13.05.2024 wherein under identical situation Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. AR further relied on situation Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. AR further relied on situation Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. AR further relied on another decision of the Co another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain ibunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust in order dated 05.06.2024, wherein under similar Charitable Trust in order dated 05.06.2024, wherein under similar Charitable Trust in ITA No.1553/Del/2024 order dated 05.06.2024, wherein under similar circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to direct him to consider the further requested to direct him to consider the application as filed under clause (iii) of application as filed under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act.
4. ..............
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application under clause (iii) of assessee trust was required to file application under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (vi) of Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (vi) of Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its application for registration. application for registration.
We find that under identical situations, a Co We find that under identical situations, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust Krishan Jain Charitable Trust (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :-
"9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application "9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application "9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) on 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of clause(iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section (1) of section 12A of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking registration under the correct pr registration under the correct provision i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) which can also be which can also be considered.
In consonance with the decision rendered by the co 10. In consonance with the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, the typographical ordinate Bench, the typographical error deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, the error deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order dated 15.03.2024 of Ld. CIT (E) is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed order dated 15.03.2024 of Ld. CIT (E) is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed order dated 15.03.2024 of Ld. CIT (E) is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(E) dated 15 and we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(E) dated 15-03-2024 and remand the matter back to the remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fre file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication by considering amended application of the appellant sh adjudication by considering amended application of the appellant
P a g e | 6 under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, or he can call for amended application from the of the Act, or he can call for amended application from the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose." by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose."
6. Respectfully following 6. Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra), we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel Tribunal (supra), we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that Ld. CIT, of the assessee that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in dismissing the application for registration merely on a technical Exemption, Pune erred in dismissing the application for registration merely on a technical Exemption, Pune erred in dismissing the application for registration merely on a technical ground and accordingly we deem it proper to set ground and accordingly we deem it proper to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and direct him to treat the Exemption, Pune and direct him to treat the application already filed by the assessee as under tion already filed by the assessee as under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act instead of under clause (vi) of of the IT Act instead of under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable T Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable T Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce supporting notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce supporting notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce supporting documents/evidences in support of application for registration, otherwise, Ld. CIT, ts/evidences in support of application for registration, otherwise, Ld. CIT, ts/evidences in support of application for registration, otherwise, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed. of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”.
4.2 In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the Hon'ble Supreme Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC Court, in the case of Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC , wherein while deciding the , wherein while deciding the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance held as Doctrine of Substantial Compliance held as under:
“33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with 33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with 33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped ment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped ment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non notwithstanding the non-compliance of directory requirements. In cases where liance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at c confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be ompliance should be accepted.”
6.2 The authorities below failed to appreciate that if the failure to 6.2 The authorities below failed to appreciate that if the failure to 6.2 The authorities below failed to appreciate that if the failure to consider the claim of option to discharge tax under consider the claim of option to discharge tax under Section 115BAA Section 115BAA on the A.Y. 2025-26 Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation ground of failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10 failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10 failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10-IC within the period stipulated under Section 115BAA Section 115BAA would cause genuine hardship to the would cause genuine hardship to the assessee.
5. Respectfully following Respectfully following the cited decisions (supra), we (supra), we hold that the ld.CIT(E) was not justified was not justified in dismissing assessee’s application for registration merely on a technical ground registration merely on a technical ground. Accordingly, the impugned order is . Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to him with a direction to him to treat the application already filed by the to treat the application already filed by the assessee decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable assessee decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable assessee decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee who would nity of hearing to the assessee who would produce supporting produce supporting necessary documents/evidences in support of documents/evidences in support of its application for registration its application for registration.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10 d in the open court on 10.02.2025.