Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M.
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) dated 28.03.2023. The Grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (“Ld. CIT(E)”) under clause (ii)(b)(1) of second proviso Section 800(3) of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application of the Appellant made in Form 10AB towards Page 1 of 4 ITA No.- 1167/Del/2023 Magic Pathshala grant of regular registration us 80G of the Act.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CTT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application of the Appellant made under Clause (ii) of first proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 80G of the Act, merely on the ground that the application for provisional registration in Form 10A was submitted under an incorrect clause.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the filing of online application for grant of provisional registration under incorrect provision (i.e, clause (i) of first proviso to Section 80G(5)) was only due to technical glitch on the income tax portal (i.e. www.incometax.gov.in), as the correct clause (i.e. clause (iv) of first proviso to Section 80G(5)) was not available for selection in the dropdown list of Form 10A.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G of the Act, merely on the ground that a procedural deficiency existed in the application form filed for provisional registration and the Appellant had neither the intention nor the scope to derive any benefit out of obtaining provisional registration under wrong clause.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) has grossly erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G of the Act, completely ignoring the fact that the Ld. CIT(E) has not raised any doubt regarding genuineness of charitable activities undertaken by the Trust, as registration under Section 12A of the Act has been duly granted to the Appellant by the Ld. CIT(E) itself.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) has grossly erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G of the Act, despite there being no violation of conditions laid down under Second proviso to Section 80G (5) read with clauses (i) to (v) of sub-Section (5) of Section 80G of the Act.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, the Ld. CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that a mere inadvertent mistake, while filing the online application for grant of provisional registration does not disqualify the Appellant from being granted regular registration us 80G of the Act, when the Ld. CIT(E) is satisfied with the genuineness of activities of the Trust, having granted registration u/s 12A.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at any time during the hearing. Any consequential relief, to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may thus be granted.”
ITA No.- 1167/Del/2023 Magic Pathshala 2. In this case, the assessee filed an application electronically on 22.09.2022 in Form No. 10AB seeking approval U/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application by concluded as under:
“Since, the applicant required to file Form 10A in section 80G(5)(iv) but the applicant filed Form 10A in wrong filed code and obtained the Form 10AC under section 80G(5)(i) instead of 80G(5)(iv), the applicant does not fulfil the conditions for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(iii). Accordingly, the present application filed in Form 10AB for approval on 22.09.2022 is hereby rejected.”
2.1 Against the above order, the assessee filed an appeal before us.
We have heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. We find that the adverse inference against assessee has been taken solely on account of filing an application in wrong field code. In our considered view, the assessee may be permitted to correct the mistake. Hence, we remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) will grant opportunity to assessee to correct the mistake and thereafter decided as per law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purpose. 4.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23-8-2023.