Trust wins appeal after 80G registration wrongly rejected for filing Form 10AB under incorrect clause despite typographical error

The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee trust's appeal against CIT(E)'s rejection of 80G registration approval. The trust had inadvertently filed Form 10AB under wrong clause (iv)(B) instead of clause (iii), despite already having previous 80G approval and provisional registration from 24-09-2021 to AY 2024-25. ITAT held this was a bonafide typographical error, not justifying dismissal on technical grounds. Following precedent in Torna Rajgad Parisar case, the matter was remanded to CIT(E) for fresh consideration with proper hearing opportunity.

---

---

The appeal in this case was filed by the assessee against the rejection of approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai. The core issues presented in the appeal were related to the rejection of the application under section 80G(5) and the grounds of objection based on law. The key legal questions considered were whether the rejection of the application under section 80G(5) was correct, whether the rejection should be reconsidered based on merits, and whether the order passed by the Commissioner was contrary to legal provisions.The facts of the case involved the assessee trust filing an application seeking approval under section 80G of the Act, which was rejected by the Commissioner on the grounds that the trust had already claimed exemption and filed the application under the wrong clause. The trust had previously obtained 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions and had received provisional registration under the new provisions. However, due to a typographical error, the application was filed under the wrong clause, leading to the rejection.During the hearing, the authorized representative argued that the rejection was unjustified and that the mistake was inadvertent. The representative cited a decision by the Pune Bench where a similar technical mistake was rectified, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal in that case allowed the appeal based on the doctrine of substantial compliance, emphasizing the importance of correcting technical errors that do not affect the substance of the application.The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents cited, found that the rejection of the application on technical grounds was not justified. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision on the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance, highlighting the importance of substantial compliance with regulatory requirements, especially in cases seeking benefits or exemptions under fiscal statutes. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in dismissing the application solely on a technical ground and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the application and provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present supporting documents.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, setting aside the Commissioner's order and directing a fresh adjudication based on fact and law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correcting technical errors that do not impact the substance of the application and highlighted the principle of substantial compliance in fiscal statutes.The significant holdings of the Tribunal in this case include the application of the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance, the importance of correcting technical errors, and the requirement for regulatory compliance in seeking benefits or exemptions under fiscal statutes. The final determination was to allow the appeal of the assessee and direct a reconsideration of the application by the Commissioner.

---