DIVYA NUR FOUDATION,KHARGHAR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, MUMBAI

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was earlier granted provisional registration u/s. 80G of the Act. Later it filed application in the prescribed form seeking permanent registration. However, while filling up the form, the assessee chose wrong clauses, which resulted in rejection of the application. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had also filed another application choosing correct clauses, i.e., rectifying the mistake made in the original application, but the said application was not taken into consideration by the Ld.CIT(E) while processing the original application. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) with a direction to process the application of the assessee by considering the amended application.

We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. Having regard to thesubmissions made by the Ld.AR, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions made by the assessee. In our view, unintentional error committed in filling up the form should not be viewed against the assessee, when the assessee has corrected the mistake by filing another application. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and restore all the issues to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for examining the application of the assessee by duly considering the amended application filed by the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld.CIT(E) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.