2025 (2) TMI 114 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of final registration under s.80G(5) due to incorrect section code and no hearing remitted for reconsideration

ITAT MUMBAI - AT held that the rejection of the application for final registration under s.80G(5) was prima facie due to an inadvertent selection of an ... Rejection of application for final registration u/s 80G(5) - assessee had inadvertently selected the wrong section code in their application - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of forms filed and the facts of the case, in our considered view, there is merit in claim of the AR that assessee has selected the wrong section code inadvertently while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB. Further, we notice that assessee did not have the opportunity of being heard before CIT(E) due to incorrect course of action advised, which otherwise assessee might have explained the facts to avoid the impugned rejection. We remit the issue back to the file of CIT(E), with a direction to grant final approval to assessee under Clause (iii) to first proviso to section 80G(5) if assessee is otherwise found eligible. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue in this appeal was whether the rejection of the application for final registration under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(Exemption), was justified. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the assessee had inadvertently selected the wrong section code in their application and whether they were given a fair opportunity to rectify this mistake.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Relevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework revolves around section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides for the approval of charitable trusts for tax exemption on donations. The specific provisions under scrutiny were the first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G, particularly clause (iii) and sub-clause (B) of clause (iv). The Tribunal also referenced a precedent from the Kolkata Bench in the case of North Eastern Social Research Centre vs CIT(E), which dealt with similar issues of procedural errors in applications.2. Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal recognized that the assessee had inadvertently selected the incorrect section code in their application for final registration in Form 10AB. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had rejected the application based on this error without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to explain or correct the mistake. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the need to allow the assessee the chance to rectify such errors.3. Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal found that the assessee had initially been granted provisional registration under clause (iv) of the first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G, which was valid up to AY 2024-25. However, in the application for final registration, the assessee mistakenly selected sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) instead of the correct clause (iii). The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had not provided the assessee with a proper opportunity to address this error.4. Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the relevant provisions of section 80G to the facts of the case and concluded that the assessee's error was inadvertent and could be corrected. The Tribunal directed that the application be reconsidered under the correct provision, clause (iii) of the first proviso to subsection (5) of section 80G, provided the assessee met all other eligibility criteria.5. Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal considered the arguments from both the assessee and the department. The assessee argued that the error was unintentional and that they were not given a fair chance to correct it. The department contended that the rejection was based on the information provided in Form 10AB. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and determined that procedural fairness required the opportunity to correct the error.6. ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the application was not justified due to the procedural error and lack of opportunity for the assessee to rectify the mistake. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration under the correct provision, ensuring that the assessee is not deprived of the benefits of section 80G due to technical errors.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS1. Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal ReasoningThe Tribunal stated, 'We remit the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(E), with a direction to grant final approval to assessee under Clause (iii) to first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, if assessee is otherwise found eligible.'2. Core Principles EstablishedThe Tribunal established that procedural errors in applications for tax exemptions should be rectifiable, and applicants must be given a fair opportunity to correct such errors. The importance of procedural fairness and the opportunity to explain inadvertent mistakes were emphasized.3. Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(E) to reconsider the application under the correct provision and to expedite the decision to ensure the assessee benefits from section 80G without interruption.