Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable trust, had its application for registration under Section 80G(5) rejected by the CIT(E) due to filing a fresh application after an initial inadvertent error in selecting the wrong section code. The CIT(E) deemed the fresh application to be beyond the time limit.
Held
The Tribunal held that since there is no provision for correcting clerical errors in online forms, the fresh application should be considered a continuation of the original one filed within the time limit. Procedural lapses should be addressed to the benefit of the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether a fresh application filed due to a clerical error in the original application should be considered a continuation of the original application, and if a delay in filing the fresh application should be condoned.
Sections Cited
80G(5), 80G(5)(iii), 12AB, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Assessment Year : 2025-26 Mata Parmeshwari Charitable Vs. CIT (Exemption), Trust, Lucknow. Siddh Guru Sthan Neelkanth Ashram, Jewane Guliyan, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh – 250345, PAN: AABTM1609A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Baldev Raj & Shri Manish Upneja, Advocates Revenue by : Ms Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.03.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Lucknow [hereinafter referred as Ld. CIT(E), for short] rejecting the application of the assessee for registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).
The assessee is a charitable trust formed on 12.03.2001 and registered u/s 12AB of the Act. An application for provisional approval and registration u/s 80G(5) was filed on 20.01.2022 in Form 10A. On 08.02.2022, the provisional approval was granted by the ld.CIT(E), Lucknow for the period 08.02.2022 to AY 2024-25.
Now, as per the time frame provided in Proviso (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, the assessee was required to file the application for final approval at least six months prior to provisional expiry of the period of approval or within six months of the commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier. On 19.03.2024, the assessee filed an application in Form 10AB for regularization of provisional registration granted u/s 80G(5), but, inadvertently, while filing the application, the applicant selected section code in the second line item of Form No.10AB as “13-Clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G” instead of “14-Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G.”
3.1 On 09.08.2024, this application was rejected through Form 10AD and when the assessee came to know of the inadvertent mistake, fresh application was filed on 29.08.2024 in Form 10AB which was rejected on 26.03.2025 by the impugned order holding that application is beyond the time line and is not maintainable. 2
The ld. AR has relied the CBDT Circular No.07/2024 dated 25.04.2024 extending the time limit granted for compliances by which the date was extended till 30.06.2024. It was also submitted that due to technical reasons the earlier application was rejected and immediately, as the error was detected, merely by a delay of 20 days fresh application was moved.
4.1 The ld. DR has submitted that the order passed is in accordance with the law as the ld. CIT(E) has no power to condone the delay. It was also submitted that otherwise also the grant of approval will need verification.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the material on record and are of the considered view that as there is no provision for making any changes of clerical nature in Form 10AB filed online, thus the fresh application filed by the assessee should have been considered relating back to the period in which the first and original application was filed.
Passing of limitation merely bars a remedy, which would generally mean that limitation is a procedural law subject and unless some substantive right of any respondent has fortified by the lapse of limitation period procedural lapses and glitches leading to injustice, in quasi judicial proceedings, the same should always be addressed to the benefit of the assessee unless malice or prejudice to the Revenue is attributable.
In the given facts and circumstances, though the ld.CIT(E) would have been justified to have considered the second application as only continuation of the previous one which was filed well within the period of limitation, still, if the second application is considered to be filed by a delay, the same deserves to be condoned.
Thus, the issue for consideration of the application on merits is restored to the files of the ld.CIT(E) to proceed further to consider the application in accordance with the law and aforesaid observations of this Bench. The appeal is allowed.
The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.