Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(E)'s orders rejecting their application for registration. There was a 10-day delay in filing the appeals, which was condoned by the Tribunal finding reasonable cause.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration due to an inadvertently mentioned incorrect clause without affording an opportunity for rectification. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of a registration application for inadvertently selecting an incorrect clause, without providing an opportunity for rectification, is valid.
Sections Cited
12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B), 80G, 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 30.7.2025 of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh passed u/s. 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and u/s. 80G of the Act respectively.
At the time of hearing, it is noted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing both the appeals for which applicant has filed the condonation petitions in the respective appeals. After hearing, both the sides and perusing the records, we find that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee for delay in filing the appeals, hence, the delay in dispute is hereby condoned in both the appeals.
Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has erred in law and facts by passing the order rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) on the ground that the application was filed under an incorrect clause. However, the same has been occurred inadvertently and without any malafide intention. Therefore, it was requested to remit back the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to adjudicate the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard and provide one more opportunity to the applicant to rectify the aforesaid mistake, if any. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(E) passed the orders rejecting the application filed in Form 10AB for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) due to the fact that applicant inadvertently mentioned the incorrect clause in the application, which can be rectified by the applicant, upon pointing out from the Ld. CIT(E). However, the same was not done. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with the directions to consider the issues afresh in both the appeals, in accordance with law by considering the aforesaid grievance of the applicant and also consider all the relevant evidences / documents to be filed by the applicant. However, Applicant is directed to furnish the complete details/ evidences before the Ld. CIT(E) in accordance with law, by rectifying aforesaid mistake, if any, and fully cooperate with him 2 | P a g e during the proceedings, for which Ld. DR fairly agreed. We hold and direct accordingly.