JAL MINOCHER MISTRY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Jal Minocher Mistry
Memorial Foundation
803-A C/o. A J. Mistry,
Mistry Manor, Dr.
Ambedkar Road, Dadar,
Mumbai-400014
v/s.
बनाम
CIT(Exemption), Mumbai
Room No. 601, 6th Floor,
Cumballa Hill, MTNL TE
Building, Pedder Road,
Dr.Gopalrao Deshmukh
Marg, Cumballa Hill,
Mumbai-400026

थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATJ8684K
Appellant/अपीलाथ
..
Respondent/ तवाद

Assessee by :
Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala
Revenue by :
Shri Hemant Kumar C.

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.

Jal Minocher Mistry on Based on law.
f the application under Section 80G(5) is i of the application under Section 80G(5
on merits.
d by the CIT(E) is alleged to be bad in law an ds leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/
ever all or any of the foregoing grounds at o o decide the application according to law.”
are that the assessee a trust filed a se(iv)(B) of 1st proviso to section the Act. However, the same was r he ground that as the trust was alrea claimed exemption, it was not correc
) which was meant for those trust whi ears. Therefore, he rejected the applica f hearing before us, the ld. Authorised ssessee trust already had an 80G app dated
15/12/2009
bearing
2009-10.Under the new provisions pe egistration was received vide regist ated 24-09-2021. The said provisio
AY 2024-2025. Renewal was to be m ar till which it was valid. However, the P a g e | 2

A No. 6520/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2025-26
y Memorial Foundation incorrect and 5) should be nd contrary to /or modify in or before or at an application in 80G(5) seeking rejected by the dy incorporated ct in filing Form ch did not claim ation.
d Representative proval under the reference no rtaining to 80G, tration number onal registration made prior to the e Assessee Trust realized this late and filed year. In the application u section for registration w
(iv) of first proviso to sub the said section since p expired. There was an ex of Trust upto 30 June 2
assesse authorised repres consider the inadvertent said section. The officer order for rejection of 8
section 80G(5) (iv) (B) a pleaded that the mistake
In this regard, she also p
Pune ITAT on the case o
Taxmann.com 720(Pune) order of the Revenue auth
4. We have carefu submission and also th admittedly, the assessee which was lodged on 25-
ITA

Jal Minocher Mistry d application after the end of the relev under 10AB which was lodged on 25
which was selected was 14A-Sub-clau b-section (5) of section 80G, instead period of the provisional registratio xtension provided by CBDT for filing
2024. The said form was filed on 25
sentative appeared before the Officer error and process the same as under c however did not consider the same
80G application as the application w nd no such change was possible in th was inadvertent and occurred due to laced reliance on the decision of coor of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati
).Per Contra, the ld.DR has vehement horities.
ully perused the facts of the case, c he provisions of law in this regard e trust was required to file applicati
May-2024 but the section for registr
P a g e | 3

A No. 6520/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2025-26
y Memorial Foundation vant assessment
5-May-2024, the use (B) of clause of clause (iii) of on had already the applications
May 2024. The with a prayer to clause (iii) of the and passed the was filed under he system. It was technical glitch.
rdinate bench of Nyas(2025) 170
tly relied on the considered rival d. We find that ion under 10AB ation which was selected was 14A-Sub-cla of section 80G, instead o error in the application.
an 80G approval under pertaining to 80G, the registration number AAA provisional registration situation, the only mista relevant clause(iii) in p inadvertent but a bonafi
4.1 We have also go in the case of Torna Rajg a technical mistake was i aside and restored the m the order are extracted be “Facts of the case, in brief
10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-IT genuineness of the activities the time being in force by objects, a notice was issue upload various information information was furnished application was furnished u exemption u/s 11 of the IT applicable in the assessee's by him. It is this order again
ITA

Jal Minocher Mistry ause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to of clause (iii) of the said section due
It is not disputed that the assessee tr the erstwhile provisions. Under the e new provisional registration was ATJ8684KF20212 dated 24-09-20
was from 24-09-2021 to AY 2024- ake committed by the assessee was place of clause(iv).Evidently, it is a ide mistake only which is subject to co one through the cited decision of hon gad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(supra) involved in the case of a trust. The ho atter back to the ld.CIT(Exemption).R elow for ready reference:
ef, are that the assessee is a trust applied for r
TEM(B) of the IT Act on 28.03.2024. With a s of the assessee and compliance to requirement the trust/institution as are material for the purp ed on 21.05.2024 through ITBA portal reques n detailed in notice. In compliance to the ab d by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, P u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the IT Act and the assess
T Act, therefore said provisions of section 12A s case, accordingly the application filed by the a nst which the assessee is in appeal before this Tri
P a g e | 4

A No. 6520/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2025-26
y Memorial Foundation o sub-section (5) e to inadvertent rust already had new provisions s received vide
21 and the said
-2025.In such a mentioning the a typographical, orrection.
’ble Pune Bench where also such on’ble Bench set
Relevant parts of registration in Form a view to verify the t of any other law for pose of achieving its sting the assessee to bove notice, desired
Pune found that the see trust has claimed
A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) is not assessee was rejected ibunal.

Jal Minocher Mistry the side of the assessee submitted before the Ben
Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was subm error the application was filed u/s 12A(1)(ac e application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act sin of the IT Act and was required to get registra was further submitted that application was filed b al and due to this the above mistake occurred.
trust is genuine and was already registered u/s 12
tted before the Bench that Ld. CIT, Exemption, y to the assessee trust to furnish reply in this r not providing reasonable opportunity to the as d. In support of the above contention, Ld. AR re ch of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Swamina om 772 (Surat-Trib.) order dated 13.05.2024 wh ased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. A o-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case
No.1553/Del/2024 order dated 05.06.2024, wh l was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee.
h to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, E him to consider the application as filed under c
Counsels from both the sides and perused the m f case laws relied on by the assessee. We find red to file application under clause (iii) of section rtent error the application was filed under c t and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemptio on.
cal situations, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribun e Trust (supra) allowed the appeal of the asses pellant has committed a technical mistake in ma
)(ii) instead of clause(iii) of clause (ac) of sub-s nted out the appellant has filed revised form correct provision i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) w the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Benc rected. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be al of Ld. CIT (E) is liable to be set aside. Hence, t der of Ld. CIT(E) dated 15-03-2024 and remand t esh adjudication by considering amended applica
P a g e | 5

A No. 6520/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2025-26
documents/evidences in Exemption, Pune shall b of appeal filed by the ass
7. In the result, the appea
4.2 In this regard,
Court, in the case of D
Doctrine of Substantial C
“33. A fiscal statute g regulatory requireme benefits of an exempti enactment is insisted together, for in such a proper to say that notwithstanding the substantial complianc statute, albeit procedu preserve the need to important to invoke either unimportant a confusingly or incorr accepted.”
6.2 The authoriti consider the claim of op
ITA

Jal Minocher Mistry c)(iii) of the Act, or he can call for amended a peal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical ng the above decision passed by the Co- ord d force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the a in dismissing the application for registration m ly we deem it proper to set-aside the order p rect him to treat the application already filed by t
12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act instead of under cl t and decide the same as per fact and law after p o the assessee. The assessee is also hereby direc
CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and n support of application for registration, o be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law sessee are partly allowed.
al filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical pu it may be relevant to refer to the H
Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC , wherei
Compliance held as under:
generally seeks to preserve the need to co ents that are important, especially when ion clause that are important. Substantial c d, where mandatory and directory require a case, if mandatory requirements are comp t the enactment has been substantiall non-compliance of directory requirement ce has been found, there has been actual co urally faulty. The doctrine of substantial co comply strictly with the conditions or requ a tax or duty exemption and to forgive n and tangential requirements or requirem rectly written that an earnest effort at com es below failed to appreciate that i ption to discharge tax under Section P a g e | 6

A No. 6520/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2025-26
y Memorial Foundation application from the purpose."
dinate Bench of this ssessee that Ld. CIT, merely on a technical passed by Ld. CIT, the assessee as under lause (vi) of section providing reasonable cted to respond to the produce supporting otherwise, Ld. CIT, w. Thus, the grounds urposes”.
Hon'ble Supreme in while deciding the omply strictly with a party seeks the compliance with an ments are lumped plied with, it will be ly complied with ts. In cases where ompliance with the ompliance seeks to uirements that are non-compliance for ments that are so mpliance should be if the failure to n 115BAA on the ground of failure on the period stipulated under S assessee.
5. Respectfully the ld.CIT(E) was not registration merely on a t set aside with a direction assessee decide the sam opportunity of hearing necessary documents/evi
6. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronounced i KAVITHA RAJAGO
(या यक सदय/JUDICIAL ME

Place: मुंबई/Mumbai
दनांक /Date: 10.02.2025
अ नकेत संह राजपूत/टेनो
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत
ITA

Jal Minocher Mistry e fact of the petitioner to file Form 1
Section 115BAA would cause genuine y following the cited decisions (supra justified in dismissing assessee’s technical ground. Accordingly, the im n to him to treat the application alre me as per fact and law after provid to the assessee who would prod idences in support of its application fo the appeal of the assessee is in the open court on 10.02.2025. OPAL
PRABHAS
MBER)
(लेखाकार सदय/ACC
त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
P a g e | 7

A No. 6520/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2025-26
y Memorial Foundation
10-IC within the hardship to the a), we hold that application for mpugned order is eady filed by the ding reasonable duce supporting or registration.
s allowed for /-
H SHANKAR
COUNTANT MEMBER

ITA

Jal Minocher Mistry t

यकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT,

स ािपत
ित //Tru
आदेशानुसार/ BY उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. R
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT
Mumbai.
P a g e | 8

A No. 6520/Mum/2024
A.Y. 2025-26
y Memorial Foundation ue Copy//
ORDER,