DR. VENKATARAMAN MEMORIAL TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Aggrieved by rejection of application filed in Form No.10AB on 29.09.2023 for seeking approval/renewal under clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of Sec.80G vide impugned order dated 07.03.2024, the assessee is in further appeal before us. It has been stated that the application was rejected on the ground that the assessee ought to have applied under clause (iii) of first proviso to Sec.80G(5) but it wrongly applied under clause (ii).

As is evident, the assessee was been granted provisional approval from 04.04.2022 to AY 2024-25. The Ld. CIT(E) held that application filed under Clause (ii) would not be maintainable

We find that the application has been rejected merely on technical ground. It is clear that the assessee had obtained provisional approval and it sought permanent registration. By inadvertent mistake, the assessee preferred application under wrong Clause (ii) instead of Clause (iii). The assessee ought to have been granted an opportunity to rectify the same. Nevertheless, we direct Ld. CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the application and consider the same on merits. The assessee is directed to substantiate its application.