Application for 80G certificate rejected due to inadvertent activity tick; remitted for fresh CIT(E) consideration and certificate if eligible

Application for registration to receive donor tax benefits was rejected due to an inadvertent tick identifying a religious activity which the applicant did not undertake; the misdescription was treated as a ministerial error. The matter is remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration of the application and supporting documents, and the authority is directed to grant the charitable donation certificate if the application satisfies statutory requirements on reconsideration. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned; (ii) Whether the rejection of regularisation of registration under section 80G(5)(ii) should be set aside/remitted in view of an inadvertent tick-mark indicating "religious" activity and supporting documentary evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the factual explanation and affidavit furnished for the 39-day delay, including the assessee's attempts to seek rectification from the ld. CIT(E) and the reasons why rectification could not be effected. The Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the filing delay and the bona fide nature of the assessee's actions.

Conclusion: The delay of 39 days is condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the order rejecting registration under section 80G(5)(ii) should be set aside or remitted for fresh consideration because the Form No.10AB contained an inadvertent tick-mark for "religious" activity despite documentary evidence to the contrary.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the material on record, including the trust deed, accounts, bank statements, proofs of expenditure, and repeated explanations that the tick-mark was an inadvertent error and that the trust never carried out religious activities. Given the inadvertent clerical error alleged and the supporting documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the matter required fresh, considered adjudication by the ld. CIT(E) rather than a final rejection based on the misstatement in the form.

Conclusion: The matter is remitted to the ld. CIT(E) to pass a fresh order and, after considering the documents filed, to grant the certificate under section 80G if found in accordance with law; this conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration by the ld. CIT(E), thereby providing the assessee an opportunity for substantive adjudication on the merits of registration under section 80G(5)(ii).

Ratio Decidendi: Where an inadvertent clerical error in a statutory form is credibly supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence, the appropriate remedy is remand to the original authority for fresh adjudication rather than final rejection on that ground.

---