Registration rejection overturned for filing wrong form - technical breach can be cured by allowing correct form submission

ITAT Chennai allowed the appeal for statistical purposes in a case where CIT(E) rejected the registration application under section 12AB. The assessee filed Form 10AB instead of the required Form 10A, which CIT(E) considered fatal to the application. ITAT held this was merely a technical breach that could be cured by permitting the assessee to file the correct form. The matter was remitted back to CIT(E) with directions to allow the assessee to file Form 10A with required details and examine the registration application under sections 12AB and 80G comprehensively before deciding.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of registration application u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act due to filing of incorrect form 10AB instead of form 10A.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves six appeals filed by different assessees challenging orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai, rejecting their applications for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were consolidated due to identical facts and issues. The primary issue in one of the appeals was the rejection of the application due to the assessee filing form 10AB instead of form 10A, which was considered an inadvertent error. The assessee argued that the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing form 10A and extended the due date, but the income tax portal did not permit the filing of a fresh form 10A.

The assessee trust contended that the rejection of the application solely based on the form filed was unjust, as the substance of the information in form 10AB was similar to form 10A, with some additional details required in form 10AB. The assessee's representative highlighted that the CBDT circulars had provided relief for such situations, and the assessee attempted to rectify the error by filing a fresh form 10A, which was not accepted by the portal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had rejected the application on technical grounds related to form submission.

Upon hearing both parties, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the rejection was based on the technicality of filing form 10AB instead of form 10A, which was deemed curable by allowing the assessee to file the correct form along with the necessary details. The Tribunal set aside the rejection and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner to permit the filing of form 10A and consider the registration under section 12AB and section 80G of the Act based on the complete information provided. The appeal in this particular case was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal followed a similar approach in the remaining appeals, setting them aside and remitting them to the Commissioner for reconsideration based on the principles established in the primary appeal. Ultimately, all appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the opportunity for rectification in cases of technical errors in form submissions.

---