Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Nanma Charitale Foundation, sought regular registration under Section 80G and approval under Section 12A. Its applications in Form 10AB were rejected by the CIT (Exemption) due to typographical errors in citing specific sub-sections (80G(5)(ii) instead of 80G(5)(iii), and 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(iii)), despite the assessee explaining it as a curable mistake.
Held
The Tribunal deemed these errors as inadvertent and procedural. Citing precedent, it remanded both cases back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, instructing to provide the assessee a fair hearing and opportunity to submit supporting documents.
Key Issues
Whether a typographical error in citing an Income Tax Act section in Form 10AB applications for registration under Section 80G and approval under Section 12A warrants rejection, or if it should be treated as a curable defect and remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
80G, 12A, 12AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM
O R D E R Per: Sonjoy Sarma, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kochi 27.12.2024 & 20.12.2024, respectively.
Since the impugned orders have been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kochi against the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience we take up as the lead case.
& 117/Coch/2025 Nanma Charitale Foundation 3. The assessee challenges the order in Form 10 AD passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) u/s. 12AB filed under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub section (5) of section 80G vide order dated 27.12.2024 whereby the petitioner’s application for registration u/s. 80G of the Act was rejected. The assessee had obtained provisional registration under sub-section 5(iv) of section 80G vide order dated 31.12.2021 commencing from 31.12.2021 for a period of 3 years. Subsequently, assessee submitted application for regular registration in Form 10AB but erroneously referred section 80G(5)(ii) instead of section 80G(5)(iii). While processing the application the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) issued a notice pointing out the discrepancy and sought additional information. The assessee furnished information stating that wrong quoting of the section was inadvertent and a typographical mistake as both the sub-sections are closely alginate in purpose. Despite the explanation made by the assessee the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application vide order dated 27.12.2024 on the ground that application was not made under the correct provision of law.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
During the course of hearing learned A.R. submitted that the mistake in referring section 80G(5)(ii) instead of section 80G(5)(iii) was typographical error and that all relevant documents and & 117/Coch/2025 Nanma Charitale Foundation compliance requirements were otherwise made. He also submitted that the assessee’s matter may be remanded back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in order to give an opportunity to the assessee. In order to substantiate his claim he relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Nitdaa Foundation, Kolkata v. CIT(E) in dated 20.08.2024 wherein the Tribunal had remanded the issue back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh consideration. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: -
“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 Nitdaa Foundation 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 month from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall file all necessary evidence before him.”
We, after hearing the rival submission and perusing the material available on record we are of the considered opinion that the mistake in quoting wrong code was inadvertent and procedural in nature. We, therefore, feel it necessary to remand back the issue to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to submit necessary supporting documents to substantiate its claim u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. In terms of the above appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. the assessee filed Form 10AB on 06.06.2024 seeking approval u/s. 12A of the Act. the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), while considering the approval he find that the following discrepancies were made by the assessee by stating the following: -
“1. The applicant is having provisional approval in Form 10AC obtained under Sub clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Act. The applicant has now filed Form 10AB under Sub clause (ii) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Act instead of filing under Sub clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act. Hence form 10AB is erroneous and will be rejected.
& 117/Coch/2025 Nanma Charitale Foundation Based on the above defects, the applicant was requested show cause as to why its application in Form 10AB filed for registration u/s.12A should not be rejected, on or before 5/12/2024, vide order sheet noting dated 28/11/2024. The applicant filed its reply on 5/12/2024 stating that wrong clause (ii) was selected, was typographical error. Thus the applicant has admitted that the application was filed under wrong clause. Based on the above discussion, Form 10AB filed for registration u/s.12A of the Act is rejected.”
Aggrieved by the order the assessee is in appeal citing that the above citation of wrong clause was due to typographical error and it should be considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) instead of rejecting the same. He, therefore, prayed that the issue may be remanded back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) with a direction to reexamine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We are of the considered opinion that the mistake in quoting wrong clause was inadvertent and procedural in nature. We, therefore, feel it necessary to remand back the issue to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to submit necessary supporting documents to substantiate its claim. In terms of the above appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5th June, 2025.