SHREE SHYAM PREM MONDAL KATHGOLA CALCUTTA,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2346/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 March 2025AY 2025-26Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal ruled that filing a form is a procedural matter and a technical error in citing the section should not be a ground for rejection. It remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the revised application made in the correct section and to pass a fresh order regarding registration.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for approval under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Income Tax Act in Form 10AB, but the application was rejected by the CIT(E) stating the section did not meet eligible criteria. The assessee argued that the incorrect section reference was a typographical error, and a revised Form 10AB was filed under the correct Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii).

What were the issues?

Whether a typographical error in citing the specific sub-section of Section 12A(1)(ac) in Form 10AB, despite a revised application being filed, should lead to the rejection of the application for approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.10.2024.

Assessment Year: NA Shree Shyam prem Mondal Kathgola Calcutta 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed an application for approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Act in Form no. 10AB. The application of the assessee has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(E) by holding that the aforesaid section does not make the eligible criteria under the said section.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. Counsel challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that the Ld. CIT(E ) erred in rejecting the application of assessee merely on the ground that application made in form no. 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) though the assessee has filed a revised and correct from of 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submits that it was typographical error and the Ld. CIT(E) ought to consider the revised application made in form no. 10AB filed by the assessee but the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly rejected the application. The prayer of the assessee is that his case is to be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for considering the revised application made in form no. 10AB in correct section.

5.

The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection.

6.

We have gone through the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E ) and find that the assessee being a society has filed an application for approval u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) in form no. 10AB. After receiving of the notice from the Ld. CIT(E ) the assessee filed written submission which is as under:

In response to the above notice, the assessee filed a written submission on 09.01.2024 stating that while filing the application in form 10AB on 05.04.2024, at serial no. 2 of the application while bunching the Section code, inadvertently, it was wrongly mentioned section code as 12A(1)(ac)(vi) instead of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Further assessee has requested to consider the assessee’s original application in Form 10AB dated 05.04.2024 as filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of 12A(10(ac)(vi) and treat the mistake occurred is a technical mistake only. Assessee additionally stated that this being a mere technical default, the final registration should not be rejected more so when the assessee has filed fresh application rectifying the mistake as explained above.

7.

It is settled law that submission of form is a procedural in nature not mandatory. The Ld. CIT(E) ought to consider the application filed by the assessee in correct section.

Assessment Year: NA Shree Shyam prem Mondal Kathgola Calcutta It is a technical fault and registration should not be rejected when the assessee has filed fresh application reviewing the mistake.

8.

Going over the facts of the case we are inclined to restore the case in the file of Ld. CIT(E ) for fresh consideration regarding filing of revised form no. 10AB in correct section. The Ld. CIT(E ) shall consider the application of form no. 10AB of the assessee and pass a afresh order with regard to registration as the assessee deems fit and proper.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 26th March, 2025

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 26th March, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Shree Shyam Prem Mondal Kathgola Calcutta, 2, Jorabagan Street, Kolkata-700006 2. Respondent – PCIT(Exemption), Kolkata 3. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B)

All 71 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →