SRI SRI AVANI SRINGERI JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA MAHASAMSTHANAM,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

The assessee, being aggrieved, has preferred this appeal before us.

The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee had filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 98. He relied upon CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024. As per this circular, the CBDT has clarified that the application should not be rejected merely because of mentioning a wrong code in Form 10AB. The AR therefore prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh examination on merits, rather than rejection on a technical ground.

The learned Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the plea of the assessee. He relied upon the order of the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali vs. CIT (Exemption) [172 Taxmann.com 651, order dated 17.01.2025], wherein the Tribunal had dismissed a similar appeal. He accordingly supported the order of the ld. CIT(E).

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The undisputed fact is that the assessee filed the application in Form 10AB on 29.06.2024. The only reason for rejection was that the assessee had chosen the wrong code in the application. Page 3 of 4

1 We also find support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in [161 Taxmann.com 311], where it was held that mere technical errors in the application process cannot be a ground to deny substantive statutory benefits to an assessee when otherwise eligible. The Hon’ble Court observed that the tax authorities must adopt a liberal and purposive approach while considering applications under section 12AB of the Act.

3 As regards the decision relied upon by the learned DR in Mathrusri Mahila Mandali Tetali (supra), we find that the facts therein were distinguishable and, in any event, subsequent binding circulars and judicial pronouncements, including the above decision of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court, tilt the balance in favour of the assessee.

4 Therefore, in the present case, the rejection of the application solely on the ground of wrong code, without considering the merits of eligibility of the assessee under section 12AB, is not justified. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(E). The matter is restored to his file with a direction to examine the application afresh on merits, in accordance with law, and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to Page 4 of 4

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file