Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee applied for and obtained a provisional approval under Section 80G. For regularization, they filed a renewal application under Form No.10AB, inadvertently mentioning a wrong sub-clause of the applicable provision. The Commissioner rejected the application based on this perceived error.
Held
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was based on a procedural lapse and a mistaken mention of a wrong provision, rather than a substantive fault. They agreed that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of a renewal application for an 80G approval due to an inadvertent error in mentioning a wrong sub-clause is justified without affording an opportunity to rectify the mistake.
Sections Cited
80G, 12AA, 10AC, 10AB, 80G(5)(iv)(B)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03/04/2024 impugned herein passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), [CIT(E)], Bangalore/Ld. CIT(E) in short (Ld. Commissioner) u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The relevant facts, as evident from the materials available on record, are that the Assesseehad applied for and obtained provisionalapproval dated 11.03.2022 u/s.80G in Form 10AC ( valid from 11.03.2022 to A Y 2024-2025) and therefore for regularization of such provisional approvalfiled an application in Form No,10AB on 17.11.2023 by mentioning the provisions as u/s.80G(5)(iv)(B) of the Act, which was considered as wrong by the Ld. Commissioner and therefore he vide order dated 03/04/2004, rejected the application filed by the Assessee.
ITANo.903/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Assessee is in present appeal before us.The learned AR has submitted that there were some technical glitches in the portal wherein the Assessee could not file its provisional approval obtained u/s 80G of the Act and in the application form inadvertently or oversight, mentioned wrong sub clause of the applicable provision, and therefore only on a procedural lapse and/or mentioning the wrong provision, the application should not have been rejected by the Ld. Commissioner without affording an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The learned AR therefore prayed that the issue case may be set aside to the file of the Ld. Commisioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
On the contrary, the learned DR though supported the impugned order but did not raise any objection for setting aside matter to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the application made by the Assessee, we observe that in the renewal application incorrect sub clause of relevant section was mentioned because of inadvertently mistake or otherwise and therefore we are in concurrence with the claim of the Assessee that the application could not have been rejected on technical glitch or simply mentioning of wrong provision, thus, for just and proper decision of the case, fair play and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, as per the provisions of law.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merit and as per the provisions of law and by taking into consideration the application filed originally as correct and in appropriate provision by sideling the mentioning of wrong provision.
ITANo.903/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 11thday of August, 2025