Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Marathi Vidnyan Parishad, applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT, Exemption, Pune, rejected both applications, stating that the assessee had submitted provisional registration instead of regular registration and that the application under sub-clause (ii) was for renewal, while the assessee required registration/conversion under sub-clause (iii). The assessee contended that the wrong section was cited due to a typographical error.
Held
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument of a curable typographical error in citing Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of (iii). Following precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders for both appeals and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT to treat the application under the correct Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and decide afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether a typographical error in citing the wrong sub-clause of Section 12A(1)(ac) for registration is a curable defect, warranting remand to the CIT for reconsideration under the correct provision, and if the consequential approval under Section 80G(5) should also be remitted.
Sections Cited
12A, 12A(1)(ac)(i), 12A(1)(ac)(ii), 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 12A(1)(ac)(vi), 12AB, 80G, 80G(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 22.01.2025 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration in Form No.10AB under sub-clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of 12A of the IT Act filed on 30.09.2024 and denying the application for approval in Form No.10AB under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act filed on 30.09.2024.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee has filed application for registration in Form No.10AB under sub-clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of 12A of the IT Act on 30.09.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of activities of the assessee and compliance to requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued on 05.11.2024 by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload certain information/clarification. The desired information was furnished by the assessee. On verification of said information furnished by the assessee, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found certain discrepancies in the information furnished by the assessee and issued another notice on 08.01.2025. Not being satisfied with the explanation filed by the assessee in reply to above said notice, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration by observing as under :- “6. On verification of the details / documents submitted by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has not furnished the copy of REGULAR REGISTRATION in form No. 10AC under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(i) or 12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but submitted a copy of PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. The present application is filed by the assessee under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) are related to application for renewal & 381/PUN/2025 of regular registration of a trust or institution which is already having regular registration under section 12AB of the Act and the period of said registration is about to expire.
The assessee was specifically requested vide the initial notice to furnish the copy of order of regular registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such copy is actually required to be furnished along with the application itself under the provisions of Rule 17A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the assessee has neither submitted the same along with the application nor in response to the notice issued in this regard. Thus the assessee failed to furnish the same. The copy of order submitted by the assessee is a copy of provisional registration under section 12AB read with clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not a copy of regular registration under section 12AB read with clause (i) or clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The non-submission of copy of order of regular registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 establishes the fact that the prerequisite for application under clause (ii) of Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not fulfilled in this case. Therefore, prima-facie it appears that the application is not maintainable.
10. In view of the above, the application filed by the assessee is treated as non-maintainable and hence, 'rejected' for statistical purposes without going into the merits of the case and no adverse inference is drawn against the assessee.”
It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted that the rejection order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was submitted that due to a typographical/inadvertent error the application was filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the IT Act, whereas the assessee was required to file application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act. It was further submitted that application was filed by its own without help of any tax professional and due to this the above mistake occurred. Ld. Counsel further & 381/PUN/2025 submitted that the assessee trust is genuine and an old trust registered u/s 12A by Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune w.e.f. 20.05.2014. Accordingly, it was prayed before the Bench that mentioning of wrong section code in the application is curable defect and one opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee trust to explain his case before Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. In support of above contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Swaminarayan Gadi Trust vs. CIT, [2024] 162 taxmann.com 772 (Surat-Trib.) order dated 13.05.2024 wherein under identical situation Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. AR further relied on another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust in order dated 05.06.2024, wherein under similar circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to direct Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, to consider the application as filed under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act.
& 381/PUN/2025 5. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its application for registration. We find that under identical situations, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking registration under the correct provision i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) which can also be considered.
In consonance with the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, the typographical error deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order dated 15.03.2024 of Ld. CIT (E) is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(E) dated 15-03-2024 and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication by considering amended application of the appellant under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, or he can call for amended application from the appellant.
& 381/PUN/2025 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.”
Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra), & considering the totality of facts of the case & in the interest of justice, we deem it proper 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 already filed by the assessee as under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act instead of under clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce supporting documents/evidences in support of application for registration without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal
filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
: 9. The instant appeal is against the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune denying grant of approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT