Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Emergency Charitable Trust, filed an application for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application due to an incorrect mention of a section, citing section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) B instead of the correct section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The assessee argued that this was a clerical error.
Held
The Tribunal held that a mistake in mentioning the correct section of law cannot be a ground for rejecting an application. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee to rectify the clerical error. The impugned order was not sustainable as it was based solely on an incorrect mention of the provision of law.
Key Issues
Whether rejection of application for registration under section 12AB was justified solely on account of a clerical error in mentioning the statutory section?
Sections Cited
12AB, 12A(1)(ac)(vi) B, 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 passed on Application No. CIT EXEMPTION BHOPAL/2024-25/12AA/11630 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Bhopal whereby Ld. CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application for grant of registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.
Perused the records and heard ld. AR of the assessee and learned departmental representative.
Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(E) has rejected assessee’s application for the registration of the trust merely on the ground that incorrect section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) B of the Act was reflected as against the correct section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. The learned AR has further submitted that though the application in physical form was submitted before the ld. CIT(E), but for no avail. Prayed to allow the appeal.
Learned DR has submitted that in the digital filing, it was not possible for the learned CIT(E) to suo moto correct the section. Hence, the appellant should have filed a fresh application as advised by ld. CIT(E) digitally. Prayed to dismiss the appeal.
To counter the arguments of Ld. DR, learned AR has submitted that assessee’s request of rectifying the inadvertent error of mention of incorrect section was declined by Ld. CIT(E). Ld. AR has further submitted that he has though already digitally applied for the same, but the assessee will get the order prospectively. If the ld. CIT(E) does not pass the order on the basis of the earliest application, it will cause irreparable loss to the assessee.
It is settled law that a mistake in mentioning the correct position of law cannot be a ground for the rejection of an application. We are of the definite view that the ld. CIT(E) should have permitted the assessee to make mention of the correct section in the originally moved application as the rightful claim of the litigant cannot be denied due to a 2 | P a g e clerical/technical error. The impugned order passed merely on the basis of incorrect mention of the provision of law, cannot thus be sustained.
We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E), who will pass fresh order after permitting the appellant/assessee to rectify the clerical error by making mention of correct provision of law as noted hereinabove.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025.