Denial of registration under s.80G(5) for wrong Form 10AB section code ruled invalid; remit for reconsideration under clause (iii)

ITAT AHMEDABAD held that denial of registration under s.80G(5) based on wrong quoting of the provision was not tenable where the applicant inadvertently selected an incorrect section code in Form 10AB. Relying on prior Tribunal decisions, the bench remitted the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to consider the application under clause (iii) to the second proviso to s.80G(5) and directed grant of approval if the trust is otherwise eligible. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an application for regular approval under section 80G(5) filed in Form 10AB with an incorrect clause reference in the second proviso to section 80G(5) (i.e., selecting clause (ii) instead of clause (iii)) is a curable/formal defect permitting the Commissioner to treat the application as made under the correct clause.

2. Whether the Commissioner has power to amend or treat/rectify the wrongly stated clause reference in Form 10AB so as to consider the application on its merits when the substantive requirements and timing for filing are otherwise satisfied.

3. Whether established Tribunal precedents permitting rectification of erroneous clause selection in Form 10AB are applicable and binding for remitting the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration under the correct clause.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Curability of incorrect clause selection in Form 10AB

Legal framework: The second proviso to section 80G(5) prescribes distinct temporal categories for making applications for approval (clauses (i)-(iv)), including a specific clause (iii) for institutions that have been provisionally approved or whose provisional approval is nearing expiry. Form 10AB requires selection of the relevant clause to indicate under which head the application is made.

Precedent treatment: Multiple Tribunal decisions (including benches referenced from Ahmedabad, Mumbai and Kolkata) have addressed situations where an applicant selected an incorrect clause in Form 10AB, holding that such incorrect selection arising from oversight is a curable/formal defect. Those decisions have directed treating the application as made under the correct clause where the factual matrix and timelines correspond to that clause.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the facts - the institution commenced activities in 2002 and held provisional registration in Form 10AC for the period up to A.Y. 2025-26; the application filed on 26-09-2024 corresponded to the factual requirements of clause (iii) (provisionally approved institutions) but was mistakenly filed under clause (ii). The Tribunal reasoned that the error was inadvertent, did not alter the substantive content or eligibility, and therefore constituted a curable mistake. The focus is on substance over form: where the application timing and the institution's status fit a particular clause, a clerical misdesignation should not defeat consideration on merits.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The mis-selection of the proviso clause in Form 10AB, when arising from inadvertence and where the facts satisfy the requirements of a different specified clause, is a curable/formal defect and the application should be treated as filed under the correct clause for adjudication on merits. (This is the operative holding applied to the facts.)

Conclusion: The incorrect clause selection in Form 10AB is curable; the application should be treated under clause (iii) of the second proviso to section 80G(5) where the factual prerequisites of clause (iii) are met.

Issue 2 - Power of the Commissioner to amend or treat the application under the correct clause

Legal framework: The statute prescribes application procedure and form-based information; no express provision forbids consideration of an application under a different proviso clause where the applicant mistakenly selected the wrong clause. The Commissioner's powers relate to accepting or rejecting applications in accordance with law; the question is whether rejection is mandated when a miscode occurs.

Precedent treatment: Tribunals have directed Commissioners to consider the application as filed under the correct clause in analogous circumstances, effectively permitting rectification of the clerical error for purposes of adjudication. These decisions treat the Commissioner's duty to consider applications on their merits as prevailing over formal misdescription when the substance is clear.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner denied registration solely on the ground that he had no power to amend the wrongly selected clause code. The Tribunal disagreed, holding that where the misstatement is inadvertent and the application otherwise meets the temporal and substantive criteria of the appropriate clause, the Commissioner should consider the application as filed under that correct clause rather than mechanically rejecting it. The Tribunal relied on the line of decisions recognizing such curability and directed remand for fresh consideration consistent with those precedents.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Commissioner should treat an application with an inadvertent clause-selection error as filed under the correct clause and consider it on merits; rejection on the sole ground of wrong clause-code selection is not warranted where the error is curable and the applicant is otherwise eligible.

Conclusion: The Commissioner is required to consider the application as if filed under the correct proviso clause (here, clause (iii)) when the mistake is inadvertent and the substantive criteria are met; the matter should be remitted for that consideration.

Issue 3 - Applicability of Tribunal precedents and the appropriate remedial direction

Legal framework: Administrative and tax adjudication principles permit correction of procedural/formal errors that do not affect the substantive rights of parties and where the claimant's intention and eligibility are clear; Tribunal precedents interpreting the proviso to section 80G(5) inform application of that principle in the specific statutory context.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on several prior Tribunal decisions that confronted identical or analogous errors (wrong clause reference in Form 10AB) and directed the Commissioner to treat the application under the correct clause and decide eligibility. The Kolkata Bench decision is specifically followed as directly on point.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated the earlier decisions as persuasive and applicable to the facts: the present case involved an existing trust with provisional registration and an application filed within the relevant timeline, but mislabelled against the proviso clause. Given identical factual and legal features, precedent supports remand and consideration under clause (iii). The Tribunal emphasized that the error was a curable oversight and not a jurisdictional defect that could legally preclude consideration.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where earlier Tribunal decisions have held that an incorrect selection of the proviso clause in Form 10AB is curable, those decisions govern and justify remitting the application to the Commissioner to be considered under the proper clause; the present ruling follows that precedent as binding in context.

Conclusion: The Tribunal, following prior decisions, remitted the application to the Commissioner with a direction to treat it as filed under clause (iii) of the second proviso to section 80G(5) and to grant approval if the assessee is otherwise eligible; this remedial direction is appropriate and consistent with precedent.

Cross-References and Outcome

For Issues 1-3 (interrelated): The Tribunal's reasoning is grounded in the second proviso to section 80G(5), applied to the factual matrix of provisional approval and timing; the line of Tribunal authorities treating incorrect clause selection as curable is followed. The operative relief is remand to the Commissioner with direction to consider the application under clause (iii) and to grant approval if eligibility is established. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on this basis for statistical purposes.

---