Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred appeals against the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) rejecting their applications for registration under sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The rejection was based on the assessee filing the application under a sub-clause different from the one the CIT believed was applicable, which the assessee considered a hyper-technical approach.
Held
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application on hyper-technical grounds was not to be encouraged. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed the application under sub-clause (ii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, while the CIT rejected it assuming it was filed under sub-clause (iii).
Key Issues
Whether the rejection of registration applications under sections 12A and 80G on technical grounds of incorrect sub-clause filing is justified.
Sections Cited
12A, 80G, 12A(1)(ac)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH
O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 23.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for the A.Y. 2025-26.
and 6865/M/2025 2 Agrawal Medical And Education Foundation 2. These appeals i.e. and No.7015/M/2025 relates to registration u/s 12A and 80G of the Act respectively. We observe from the impugned order as involved in the Ld. Commissioner simply rejected the application filed by the Assessee for regular registration 12A on the reason that the application would have been filed under sub clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. However, the Assessee filed the said application under sub clause (ii)of such section.
We deem it appropriate to mention herein that we in the past and so many identical orders/cases remanded the identical issue/cases to the file Ld. Commissioner decision afresh, with a direction to consider such application filed inadvertently under sub-clause (ii), as valid and/or under sub- clause(iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act.
Thus, on the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined not to endorse and encourage the reason for rejecting the application filed by the Assessee, by the Ld. Commissioner, by way of impugned order, on hyper-technical approach.
Hence the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit by considering the Application filed by the Assessee under such clause (ii), as valid and under sub clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued and file relevant submissions/documents which would be essentially required. The Assessee is directed not to cause any delay. which relates to registration u/s 80G of the Act. Thus, in view of our judgment in which pertains to registration u/s 12A of the Act, the instant case is also remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, in the same terms.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.02.2026.