U V PATEL FOUNDATION ,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of a technical/inadvertent error in mentioning the wrong clause is unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and directed him to treat the application as filed under the correct clause.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the IT Act due to an inadvertent error, when it should have applied under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The CIT (Exemption) rejected the application, stating that an application filed under one clause cannot be treated as filed under another.
What were the issues?
Whether a technical error in selecting the wrong sub-clause for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac) can lead to the rejection of the application. Whether the CIT has the power to treat an application filed under one sub-clause as filed under another in case of inadvertent error.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Shree Swaminarayan Gadi Trust v. CIT44 citing162 Taxmann.com 772 · 2024
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA/AB of the IT Act.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust applied for registration in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B) of the IT Act on 14.03.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirement of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload various information detailed in notice. In compliance to the above notice, desired information was furnished by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found that the application was furnished u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the IT Act instead of u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act. In reply, the assessee trust submitted that due to an inadvertent error the application for registration was made under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) instead of under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and requested to consider the application for registration as filed under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT. But Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune was of the view that once the application has been filed under a particular clause it cannot be treated to be filed under other clause. Thus, the application filed by the assessee trust was rejected by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted that the rejection of order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was submitted that due to a typographical/inadvertent error the application was filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) whereas the assessee was required to file application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act. It was further submitted that application was filed by its own without help of any tax professional and due to this the above mistake occurred. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee trust is genuine and was approved w.e.f. 10.12.1996. Accordingly, it was prayed before the Bench that mentioning of wrong code in the application is curable defect and Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune, should have had accepted the request of the assessee to treat the application as filed under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act. In support of the above contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Swaminarayan Gadi Trust vs. CIT, [2024] 162 taxmann.com 772 (Surat-Trib.) order dated 13.05.2024 wherein under identical situation Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. AR further relied on another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust in order dated 05.06.2024, wherein under similar circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to direct him to consider the application as filed under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act.
Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its application for registration. We find that under identical situations, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking registration under the correct provision i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) which can also be considered.
In consonance with the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, the typographical error deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order dated 15.03.2024 of Ld. CIT (E) is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(E) dated 15-03-2024 and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication by considering amended application of the appellant under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, or he can call for amended application from the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.”
Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra), we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in dismissing the application for registration merely on a technical ground and accordingly we deem it proper to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and direct him to treat the application already filed by the assessee as under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act instead of under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the
More judgments on Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3149/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sevasetu Foundation, Vadodara vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)…ITA 3148/AHD/2026[NA]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- D vs Welfare Foundation, Thanevs.Income Tax…ITA 6191/MUM/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026