SRE JEYAMKONDA CHOLEESWARA SOUNDARANAYAKI AMMAN KUMBABISHEKA MALAR KUZHU,SIVAGANGAI vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, , MADURAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee's error was merely technical. It set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(Exemption) to consider a subsequent correct application or allow the assessee to file a fresh one.
What were the facts?
A charitable trust, having provisional registration, applied for final registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of the correct Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The CIT(Exemption) rejected this application as infructuous and non-maintainable due to this technical error without providing an opportunity for rectification.
What were the issues?
Whether an application for final registration of a charitable trust can be rejected solely on the technical ground of citing an incorrect sub-section of Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii),Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आदेश /O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai in Form 10AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide Application No.CIT(Exemption), Chennai/2022-23/12AA/11960 dated 04.03.2023.
At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 135 days. The impugned order passed by the CIT(Exemption) dated 04.03.2023 was served on the assessee on 04.03.2023. The appeal has to be filed on or before 03.05.2023 but it was actually filed on 15.09.2023 with a delay of 135 days. The assessee has filed affidavit along with condonation petition stating the reason that the CIT(Exemption has rejected the assessee’s application in Form 10AB seeking registration as infructuous and non-maintainable that means a technical error and assessee was under the impression that it could be corrected. But, however seeking professional advice, the assessee was advised to file another application in Form No.10AB, which he did. However, assessee was also advised to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the rejected application. Hence, this delay was caused, which is beyond the control of the assessee. When this was confronted to ld.CIT-DR, he objected to condone the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is rejecting the application filed in Form No.10A u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, as - 3 - infructuous and non-maintainable and rejected on technical ground without affording opportunity to rectify the application.
Brief facts are that the assessee trust was created on 21.09.2021 as a charitable trust for providing relief to the poor and to provide education and medical relief. The assessee filed application for registration in Form No.10A u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act on 30.05.2022 and consequently, Form No.10AC was issued on 20.06.2022 granting provisional registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act for the AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-26. Subsequently, on 03.09.2022, six months prior to expiry of provisional registration, the assessee filed Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. The assessee received hearing notices, which was responded by the assessee but the CIT(Exemption) vide his order in Form No.10AD on 04.03.2023 rejected the assessee’s application treating it as infructuous and non-maintainable by stating the reason that the assessee ought to have applied u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act instead of 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. The CIT(Exemption) recorded the fact and rejected the application by observing as under:- 4. While processing the said application, it is noticed from the applicant's Form 10AC issued by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) that the applicant has been granted provisional registration (fresh registration) for the registration period of 3 years (from AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-2026).
4. As the applicant's case is that of fresh registration, the applicant ought to have filed its application u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii). But, the applicant has erroneously filed its present application in Form 10AB seeking registration u/s. 12A(1) (ac) (iü) which covers the cases of trust which are already registered and seeking re-registration.
5. Subsequently, the applicant filed submission on 30.12.2022, which has been duly considered.
6. In the light of the fact that the applicant had been granted only provisional registration for a period of 3 years (from AY 2023-24 to AY 2025-2026) as stated above, the present application in Form 10AB filed u/s. 12A(1)ac)(i) seeking registration is prima-facie non-maintainable.
On careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, the above application filed on 20.09.2022 in Form 10AB u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) is treated as infructuous, non-maintainable and hence, the same is rejected for statistical purpose. However, no adverse inference is drawn against the applicant's existing and valid registration, if any, as per law u/s. 12AB.
Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.
After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, it is noted that the assessee has simpliciter made a technical mistake in applying u/s.12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. It was informed to the Bench by the ld.counsel for the assessee that even now the assessee has filed fresh Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, which can also be considered. In our view, the same purpose will be served by adjudicating the same application. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(Exemption) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh
- 5 - adjudication, either considering the subsequent application of assessee u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act or he can call a fresh application from the assessee. In term of the above, matter restored back to the file of the CIT(Exemption).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 31st January, 2024 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii)
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Lalaram Gupta Charitable Trust, Agra vs ITO, Exemption, AgraITA 660/AGR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Lalaram Charitable Trust, Agra vs ITO, Exemption, AgraITA 659/AGR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026