Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an application for registration in Form 10AB under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B) of the IT Act. The CIT rejected the application, stating it should have been filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and that the activities were not genuine. The assessee claimed this was a typographical error made without professional help.
Held
The Tribunal held that the incorrect mention of the sub-section in the application was a technical and curable defect. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT to consider the application as if it were filed under the correct sub-section.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of a registration application due to a typographical error in citing the sub-section is justified, and if such an error is curable.
Sections Cited
12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B), 80G(5), 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 18.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration in Form No.10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B) of the IT Act filed on 19.03.2024 and denying the application for approval in Form No.10AB under sub clause (B) of (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the IT Act filed on 20.03.2024.
& 2390/PUN/2024 : 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's application for registration u/s 12A of ITA, 1961.
2. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune; erred in law and on facts in holding that activities of the appellant are not genuine.
3. The learned CIT(E) erred in law and on facts in holding that the Appellant ought to have applied for regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) whereas, Appellant has applied for regular registration u/s 12A(1)(ac) (vi)-ITEM(B) of ITA, 1961. Appellant contends that, learned CIT(E)'s incorrect selection the sub-section (as above) has resulted in incorrect decision.
4. Appellant contends that Appellant is keen to make all compliances and remain at better side of law.
5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust applied for registration in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B) of the IT Act on 19.03.2024. 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 dated 15.05.2024 was issued through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload various information detailed in notice. In compliance to the above notice, desired information was furnished by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found that the application was furnished u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the IT & 2390/PUN/2024 Act instead of u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act, accordingly a notice dated 06.09.2024 was issued to the assessee to submit clarification in this regard. Not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee in response to notice dated 06.09.2024, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected the application for registration. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. 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)(vi)(B), 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 submitted that the assessee trust is genuine and an old trust registered u/s 12A of the IT Act. 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 & 2390/PUN/2024 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.
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 & 2390/PUN/2024 under clause (vi) 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.
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 & 2390/PUN/2024 section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act instead of under clause (vi) 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 partly allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.2389/PUN/2024 :
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 Act. Since we have remanded the issue of grant of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act to the file of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune for de novo adjudication, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the issue of grant of approval u/s 80G(5) as well to the file of Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune being consequential, for de novo adjudication.