Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee applied for registration under Section 80G of the IT Act but inadvertently filed the application under a wrong sub-clause (B) of (iv) instead of (iii) or (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (5). The CIT (Exemption) rejected the application on this technical ground, despite the assessee's submission that it was a clerical error.
Held
The Tribunal found that the application was rejected solely on a technical error regarding the wrong section code, with no adverse findings on merits. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the CIT to treat the application as filed under the correct desired clause and grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether an application for 80G registration can be rejected solely on the technical ground of a clerical error in specifying the sub-clause under which it was filed, when there are no adverse findings on merits.
Sections Cited
80G, 80G(5), 80G(5)(iv), 80G(5)(iii), 80G(5)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
: This appeal in filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act.
& 1798/PUN/2025 2. There is delay of 209 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 209 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its application for registration in Form No.10AB under sub-clause (B) of (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act on 16.04.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and fulfilment of conditions laid down in clause (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act, a notice was issued through ITBA portal on 06.06.2024 requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification on or before 21.06.2024. The assessee in response to above notice furnished desired information as mentioned in the notice. After verifying these details, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies and asked for their clarification on or before 05.10.2024. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune also observed that the application for approval u/s 80G(5) was filed under sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) which is not & 1798/PUN/2025 applicable to the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted that due to clerical error the application for regular approval was filed under wrong clause and accordingly requested to consider the application has been filed under clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act. Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee in response to above notice, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was of the opinion that the condition (i) of section 80G(5) of the IT Act is not fulfilled & accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected by observing as under :- “6. The assessee responded to the said notice on 14/10/2024. The assessee accepted the mistake and requested to consider the present application under clause (iii). The assessee has also stated that there was clerical error while making an application for the regular approval while filing Form 10AB. Due to clerical error the application for final regular approval shall not be cancelled / rejected on the grounds of the natural justice. The contention of the trust is duly considered. However, the same is not acceptable.
Considering the above facts discussed in the show notice and discrepancies noticed, prima-facie it appears that the assessee has inadvertently filed the present application. However, the request of the assessee to consider the present application under clause (iii) cannot be accepted since the form filed under one clause cannot be considered to be filed under another clause of section 80G(5)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
8. In view of the above, the application dated 16/04/2024 filed under sub clause (B) of (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected.”
& 1798/PUN/2025 4. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the application for registration u/s 80G(5) was rejected on technical ground of applying under wrong section clause. In this regard, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that there was no deliberate/wilful intention to submit the application under wrong code before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Ld. AR further submitted before the bench that under identical facts coordinate benches of this Tribunal has already allowed the appeals filed by the other assessees wherein Ld. CIT, Exemption was directed to consider the application as filed under appropriate/desired clause and decide the issue afresh. In support of this contention, Ld. AR relied on the following decisions :- (i) Help For Children In Need Foundation vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune (ITA No.1774/PUN/2024 order dated 09.12.2024). (ii) Alumni Association vs. CIT, Exemption, Hyderabad (ITA No.356/Hyd/2025 order dated 03.06.2025). (iii) Rotary Charity Trust vs. CIT, Exemption, Mumbai (ITA No.6133/MUM/2024 order dated 09.01.2025). (iv) Subharma Charitable Trust vs. CIT, Exemption, Mumbai (ITA No.6186/MUM/2024 order dated 28.02.2025). (v) Anudip Foundation for Social Welfare vs. CIT, Exemption, Kolkata (ITA No.1341/Kol/2023 order dated 11.03.2024).
& 1798/PUN/2025 6. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to direct him to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, so that the assessee can produce documents / evidence/ explanations in support of the application for approval u/s 80G of the IT Act.
7. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue supported the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune & requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the application for registration u/s 80G(5) was rejected on technical ground of applying under wrong section code. In this regard, we find that the application was rejected on the ground of selecting wrong section code. We also find that on merits nothing adverse was found by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. We also find that under identical facts a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Nitdaa Foundation vs. CIT, 167 taxmann.com 111 (Kolkata – Trib.) has already allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :-
& 1798/PUN/2025 “12. Thus, the whole controversy arose due to incorrect mention of the clause under which the application was required to be filed, which was mentioned as clause (iv) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G in column 6 of Form No. 10AC whereas the same should have been mentioned as clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G and the Ld. AR also admitted this fact in the course of the hearing. Since, Form No. 10AC was filed in time, the error on the part of the assessee for mentioning the wrong clause is deemed to be a curable defect and the application on Form No. 10AC is deemed to be filed under clause (i) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G. The order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) is hereby set aside and he is required to consider the application as filed under clause (i) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act and consider the same for grant of approval under section 80G(5) to the trust in accordance with law within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall file all necessary evidence before him.”
Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal (supra), we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to treat the application of the assessee as filed under required/desired clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G and consider the same for grant of approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to comply with the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce requisite information/documents/ evidences in support of application for approval u/s 80G of the IT Act, otherwise Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass & 1798/PUN/2025 appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1798/PUN/2025 :
11. This appeal in filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 80G of the IT Act.
12. Since we have already decided the appeal in involving the issue of approval u/s 80G of the IT Act and remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune for deciding the issue afresh. This appeal also involves the issue of approval u/s 80G of the IT Act and therefore being second appeal on same issue, it becomes infructuous and dismissed as such.
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is dismissed.