Loading judgment…
Facts
An educational society claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) for AY 2023-24, but CPC denied it under Section 143(1) due to a mismatch in registration details and URN. While the assessee applied for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi), the CIT(E) mistakenly granted approval under Section 10(23C)(ii), and the assessee cited an invalid URN from a provisional registration. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, treating the discrepancies as typographical errors.
Held
The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the section claimed by the assessee (10(23C)(vi)) and the section of approval granted by the CIT(E) (10(23C)(ii)), and the pending rectification application by the assessee before the CIT(E). The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-verification of the correct registration/approval details, pending the assessee pursuing the rectification application with the CIT(E).
Key Issues
Whether an educational society can be denied exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) due to a typographical error in the approval order granted by CIT(E) and the use of an incorrect URN in the return of income.
Sections Cited
10(23C)(vi), 10(23C)(ii), 12A, 12AB, 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 14.07.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(Addl/JCIT(A), Bhubaneswar) for the Asst. Year 2023-24.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds :
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an educational society filed its Return of Income for the Asst. Year under consideration on 30.11.2023 claiming exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and declared NIL income. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act by intimation dated 20.12.2024 whereby the CPC denied the exemption u/s.10(23)(vi) of the Act due to the mismatch of the registration details provided in the Return of Income. The Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee originally obtained provisional registration u/s.12A of the Act vide Form 10AC dated24.09.2021 bearing URN:AALAS1534RE20217 issued by CPC for the Asst. Years 2022-23 to 2024-25. Subsequently, the assessee filed Form 10AB before the CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad for regular registration u/s.10(23C) of the Act which was granted by the CIT€ vide order dated 31.03.2023 u/s.10(23C)(ii) of the Act bearing URN:AALAS1534R22HY01. Thus the Ld. DR submitted that the provisional registration was granted u/s.12A of the Act whereas the regular registration / approval was granted u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act and thus there is a discrepancy in the claim of the assessee made u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The registration was granted u/s.10(23C)(ii) of the Act does not entitle the assessee to claim exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act as these two provisions are applicable on the different nature of organisation /institution as well as different nature of income. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that there is only a typographical mistake in mentioning the URN issued by the CPC for provisional registration instead of the URN under which the regular registration was granted by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). This finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the record because in the Return of Income the assessee claimed exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) whereas the registration / approval was granted u/s.10(23C)(ii) of the Act. Thus the Ld. DR has submitted that the CPC has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee ;due to this mismatch of the registration details and claim made by the assessee. Until and unless the assessee has valid registration u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act, the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed.
On the other hand, the Ld. AR of the assessee has fairly submitted that there was mistake which is technical and typographical in nature while granting the registration u/s.10(23C) of the Act. He has referred to the application in Form 10AB at page No.36 of the paper book and submitted that the application was made by the assessee for registration u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act. However, in the order granting the registration, there is a typographical mistake and the section mentioned as 10(23C)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. AR has further submitted that the assessee already filed application for rectification of mistake before the Ld. CIT(E) vide application dated 27.10.2025, however, the same is pending as no order is passed till date. He has referred to the copy of the application is placed at page No.47 of the paper book. Thus the Ld. AR has submitted that this mistake in mentioning the section 10(23C)(ii) of the Act in the order in Form 10AB is only a typographical mistake and shall not effect the claim of the assessee.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the material available on record. The CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act on the ground of mismatch of the details provided in the return with the registration details available with the department. There is no dispute that the Ld. CIT(E) vide order dated 31.03.2023 granted regular approval u/s.10(23C)(ii) of the Act whereas the assessee in the application in Form 10AB, the assessee correctly mentioned the section code as 10(23C)(vi). Thus it appears that there is a typographical mistake in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) while granting approval u/s.10(23C) of the Act. The assessee filed an application dated 27.07.2025 for rectification of the said mistake and the same is pending before the Ld. CIT(E). Further, there is a discrepancy regarding the URN mentioned by the assessee in the Return of Income being the URN issued at the time of provisional registration u/s.12A of the Act instead of URN under which the order in Form 10AB dated 31.03.2023 was passed for granting regular approval u/s.10(23C) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has taken note of discrepancy and mistake regarding the URN but has not taken note of the fact that the exemption claimed by the assessee in the Return of Income is under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act as the assessee being an educational society can claim the exemption only under clause (vi) of section 10(23C) of the Act but the approval was granted by the Ld. CIT(E) u/s.10(23C)(ii) of the Act which is applicable for political parties. Therefore, it is apparent from the fact and record that there is a mistake in the order of Ld. CIT(E) dated 31.03.2023 giving a regular clause of section 10(23C) which is nothing but a typographical mistake. The application for rectification of said mistake is also pending for consideration before the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, until and unless the mistake quoted in the order passed in Form 10AB dated 31.03.2023 is rectified, the claim of the assessee would be rejected on this technical ground. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the matter to the record the Assessing Officer for verification of necessary record and ascertain the correct details regarding the registration / approval granted by the Ld. CIT(E) to the assessee. In the meantime, the assessee shall also pursue the application for rectification of the mistake before the Ld. CIT(E) and then decide the issue as per law.