Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a public charitable trust, appealed against the rejection of its applications for exemption under Section 12A and Section 80G. The applications were rejected by the CIT(E) primarily due to a technical error where the assessee incorrectly cited Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). A 217-day delay in filing the appeal was explained by lack of legal knowledge and the managing trustee's health issues.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 217-day delay, finding it neither willful nor wanton. It held that a mere technical mistake in quoting the wrong section should not vitiate the assessee's claim for exemption. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the CIT(E) to readjudicate the matter, allowing the assessee to re-apply with the correct statutory prescriptions.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Rejection of Section 12A and Section 80G registrations due to a technical error in citing the specific sub-section of the Income Tax Act during application.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
The below mentioned four appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee contesting the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority indicated Column-E, herein below:-
S. Appeal Nos. AYs Appellant CIT(A) Order Details Respondent No. A B C D E F DIN & Order No.ITBA / / EXM / F / EXM45 / 2024- M/s. Sri Ghatikachala Kshetra Bhakthajana Kainkariya Chny / 2025 25 / 1066830051(1) dated The 1 - Samajam, Commissioner 19.07.2024 No.20, Swamy Apartments, of Income Tax CRR Puram, 2nd Phase, Ganapathiraj Nagar Extn., (Exemptions), Virugambakkam, / DIN & Order No.ITBA / Chennai. Chennai-600 092. EXM / F / EXM45 / 2024- [PAN: AACTS5551L] Chny / 2025 2 - 25 / 1071438838(1) dated 21.12.2024 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 217 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is the public charitable trust providing relief to the poor in terms of food, knowledge etc. It was pleaded that the trust run by volunteers do not have adequate knowledge of law and tax, the managing trustee was undergoing personal health issues and also that there was misunderstanding in interpretation of section 12A. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 Both the appeals of the assessee vide for rejection of exemption u/s 12A and ITA No.1295 for rejection of exemption u/s 80G are interlinked and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated together. 4.0 As regards ITA No.1294 for denial of exemption u/s.12A the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has argued that admittedly it had by an inadvertent ignorance mentioned wrong section while applying for registration. Thus, assessee had mentioned section 12A (1) (ac) (ii) Page - 2 - of 5 instead of section 12A (1) (ac) (iii) which is the primary reason for rejection of its application by CIT(E ) as evident from order dated 09.07.2024. It was submitted that all the grounds of appeal in the said thus revolve on the issue of denial of exemption u/s 12A. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the order of this tribunal in the case of Save Shakti Foundation vide ITA No.923/Chny/2024 dated 26.04.2024 and stated that its facts are squarely covered by the impugned decision. 5.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorites. 6.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that a coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Save Shakti Foundation (supra) has ruled as under:- “…..1. The assessee sought early hearing of this appeal and the application was placed before the bench for grant of early hearing. Upon perusal, it transpires that the assessee is aggrieved by rejection of an application filed by it on 27.09.2023 seeking registration under clause (ii) of first proviso to Sec. 80G(5). The Ld. CIT(Exemptions), vide impugned order dated 07.03.2024, rejected the same on the ground that the assessee was granted provisional approval up-to AY 2024-25. Therefore, the application ought to have been made under clause (iii) 2 instead of clause (ii). The application was held to be not-maintainable which has led to present appeal by the assessee.
The Ld. AR referred to recent Circular No.07/24 issued by CBDT on 25.04.2024 extending time limit for all such applications to 30.06.2024. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the appeal itself may be heard and the matter may be remitted back in the light of aforesaid Circular.
We are of the opinion that mere mistake in filing the form would not vitiate the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we direct Ld. CIT(E) to grant an opportunity to assessee to correct the said mistake and consider the application on merits.
The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order.…..”
Page - 3 - of 5 7.0 Thus we have noted the above decision of the coordinate bench of this tribunal ruling that mere technical mistake in quoting the wrong section while seeking exemption cannot be a ground to vitiate the claim of the assessee and its consequent denial. It is trite law that in the administration of justice the form cannot prevail over substance. Accordingly, in full agreement as well as respectful compliance with the order of the coordinate bench (supra), we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld.CIT(E ) to readjudicate the matter, in accordance with law, after allowing the assessee to make application invoking correct statutory prescriptions. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide is allowed for statistical purposes. 9.0 The appeal of the assessee vide is regarding the denial of registration u/s 80G of the Act. We have noted that the facts existing therein are identical to those available in ITA No.1294/Chny/2025. Accordingly, the decision taken in ITA No.1294 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No.1295 also.
Page - 4 - of 5 10.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-
ITA Nos Assessment Result Year / Chny / 2025 Allowed for statistical - purposes / Chny / 2025 Allowed for statistical - purposes
Order pronounced on 18th , July-2025 at Chennai.