Technical defects in charitable registration forms cannot justify rejection where substantive details are otherwise on record.

An inadvertent wrong clause selection in a registration application was treated as a technical lapse, because the assessee had otherwise furnished the requisite details and the allegation of misrepresentation was not substantiated; the rejection of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was therefore not sustained and fresh consideration on merits was required. Because denial of section 80G registration was based only on the failed section 12A registration, that rejection also could not stand independently and had to be reconsidered. Both matters were remanded for de novo adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to place the necessary material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified merely because the wrong clause was selected in the form. (ii) Whether the rejection of registration under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resting on the rejection of section 12A registration, could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified merely because the wrong clause was selected in the form.

Analysis: The application was filed with an incorrect sub-clause selection, but the material on record showed that the assessee had furnished the required details and that the mistake was inadvertent. The reason assigned for rejection was alleged misrepresentation, but that allegation was not substantiated. The proper approach was to treat the mistake as a technical lapse and consider the application on merits, particularly when the assessee had sought registration and the facts were otherwise placed before the Authority.

Conclusion: The rejection of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) could not be sustained and the matter was required to be reconsidered de novo.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of registration under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resting on the rejection of section 12A registration, could be sustained.

Analysis: The denial of section 80G registration was founded only on the non-availability of regular registration under section 12AB. Once the section 12A issue required fresh adjudication, the rejection of section 80G could not stand independently and also required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The rejection of registration under section 80G was also set aside for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: Both matters were sent back for fresh adjudication, with the assessee to be given an opportunity to place the requisite material before the Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A registration application under the Income-tax Act cannot be rejected solely for an inadvertent wrong clause selection where the substantive requirements are otherwise before the Authority; such a technical defect warrants reconsideration on merits and consequential matters dependent on that registration must also be re-examined.

---