Wrong statutory reference cannot defeat exemption approval when substantive eligibility under section 10(23C)(iii) is otherwise established.

Approval under section 10(23C)(iii) could not be refused merely because the application and provisional registration referred to the wrong sub-clause, where the institution's substantive eligibility was otherwise established. The assessee was an institution of national importance, and its objects and activities were not in dispute. The refusal rested only on a technical mistake in the statutory reference, and the earlier provisional approval was treated as invalid on that basis. Applying the principle that a legitimate claim should not fail for incorrect invocation of a provision when the underlying entitlement exists, the denial was set aside and approval under section 10(23C)(iii) was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether approval under section 10(23C)(iii) could be denied merely because the application and provisional registration were made under the wrong sub-clause, when the assessee otherwise satisfied the substantive eligibility conditions.

Analysis: The assessee was an institution of national importance and its objects and activities were not in dispute. The refusal was founded only on a technical error in choosing the wrong sub-clause while applying for approval. The order treated the earlier provisional approval as invalid for that reason and declined final approval on the same technical basis. The legal position applied was that a legitimate claim should not fail merely because it was made under the wrong provision, where the underlying entitlement is otherwise established.

Conclusion: The approval could not be denied on the ground of a mistaken statutory reference. The denial was set aside and approval under section 10(23C)(iii) was directed to be granted to the assessee.

---