2025 (5) TMI 946 - AT - Income Tax

Trust's registration application allowed despite citing wrong provision - procedural error not fatal under section 12A

ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal where the assessee trust, previously registered under section 12AA, inadvertently filed for registration under section ... Rejecting the assessee’s application seeking registration u/s 12A - assessee was not provisionally registered u/s 12AB which condition was necessary for seeking registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) - HELD THAT:- The provisions governing seeking and grant of registration to trusts already registered u/s 12A/12AA of the Act were provided u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) r.w.s 12AB(1)(a) of the Act. While those seeking registration for the first time, whether new or old trusts were first to be granted provisional registration u/s. 12AB(1)(c) of the Act and thereafter required to seek final registration in terms of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. Assessee pointed out that in the case of the assessee, it was an old Trust, which already been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act; that accordingly, as per the provision of new scheme, it was required to seek fresh registration in terms of section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act. However, in the instant case, the assessee has inadvertently filed application under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. As in various decisions of the ITAT holding that mere mistake in making an application for grant of registration under a wrong provision/section was not fatal to the grant of registration, and the ld.CIT had directed to treat the application of the assessee under correct section, and consider the case on merit. Since the application was inadvertently filed by the assessee under an incorrect provision, we direct the ld.CIT(E) to treat the application filed as per the applicable provision and in the light of the same, consider the case of the assesse on merits. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. The principal legal issues considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) pertain to the rejection of an application for registration of a trust under section 12A(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specifically, the Tribunal examined:Whether the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was maintainable in the absence of provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act;Whether the assessee was required to seek provisional registration before applying for final registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii);Whether the rejection of the application without providing an opportunity of hearing was legally valid;Whether an inadvertent mistake in filing the application under an incorrect sub-clause of section 12A(1)(ac) could be fatal to the grant of registration;The proper interpretation and application of the amended provisions of sections 12A(1)(ac) and 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as applicable to trusts seeking registration.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Maintainability of Application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) without Provisional Registration under Section 12ABLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended, sets out various categories under which a trust or institution may apply for registration. Clause (iii) applies to trusts that have been provisionally registered under section 12AB or provisionally approved under specified clauses of section 10, requiring application at least six months prior to expiry of provisional registration or within six months of commencement of activities, whichever is earlier. Section 12AB(1) prescribes the procedure for registration, including provisional registration for new trusts under clause (c).Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application on the ground that the assessee was not provisionally registered under section 12AB, rendering the application under clause (iii) premature and non-maintainable. The Tribunal scrutinized this reasoning in light of the legislative scheme.Application of Law to Facts: The assessee was an existing trust registered under the old scheme (section 12AA). The Tribunal noted that trusts already registered under the old scheme were to apply under clause (i) of section 12A(1)(ac), not clause (iii). The application under clause (iii) was therefore filed under an incorrect provision.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended that provisional registration was not a prerequisite for its category of trust and that the application was inadvertently filed under the wrong sub-clause. The Commissioner's rejection was based on a misclassification of the category under which the assessee should have applied.Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the rejection on the ground of prematurity was not sustainable since the application was filed under an incorrect provision and the assessee was not required to seek provisional registration.2. Requirement of Provisional Registration and Correct Categorization of Trusts under Section 12A(1)(ac)Legal Framework: The amended section 12A(1)(ac) categorizes trusts into:Those already registered under old provisions (clause (i));Those registered under section 12AB or approved under section 10 with expiring registration (clause (ii));Those provisionally registered under section 12AB (clause (iii));Trusts commencing activities for the first time (clause (vi)(A) and (B)).Section 12AB(1)(c) provides for provisional registration for new trusts or those applying for the first time.Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee was an old trust registered under section 12AA and thus fell under clause (i) of section 12A(1)(ac). Such trusts are not required to seek provisional registration under section 12AB before applying for registration. The scheme clearly distinguishes between old trusts and new trusts in terms of procedural requirements.Application to Facts: Since the assessee was an old trust, the application under clause (iii) was misplaced. The proper course was to apply under clause (i) for fresh registration.Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed that the assessee's application was filed under an incorrect provision due to inadvertence and that the procedural requirement of provisional registration did not apply to it.3. Effect of Filing Application under Incorrect Provision and Opportunity of HearingLegal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal relied on multiple precedents from various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that a mere mistake in filing an application under an incorrect provision does not necessarily preclude the grant of registration. The authorities are empowered to treat the application under the correct provision and decide on merits.Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner was aware of the assessee's earlier registration under section 12AA and the inadvertent nature of the error in filing. The rejection without hearing was also challenged as improper.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the inadvertent filing under the wrong provision. The assessee's plea for restoration to the Commissioner for reconsideration under the correct provision was accepted.Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to treat the application under the appropriate provision and consider it on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.4. Interpretation of Sections 12A(1)(ac) and 12ABLegal Framework: The Tribunal undertook a detailed examination of the amended provisions. Section 12A(1)(ac) specifies the categories and timing for registration applications. Section 12AB prescribes the procedure for registration, including provisional registration for new trusts, inquiry into genuineness of activities, and compliance with other laws.Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized the legislative intent to streamline registration procedures, distinguishing between old trusts seeking fresh registration and new trusts requiring provisional registration first. The scheme is designed to ensure that only genuine trusts are registered after due inquiry.Application to Facts: The assessee, being an old trust, was not subject to the provisional registration requirement and was entitled to apply directly under clause (i). The misfiling under clause (iii) was a procedural error, not a substantive bar.Conclusion: The Tribunal's interpretation aligns with the legislative scheme, ensuring that procedural errors do not defeat substantive rights.Significant Holdings'The present application filed in Form No.10AB under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act is premature and non maintainable and liable to be rejected as such, without going into the merits' was the initial finding of the Commissioner but was reversed by the Tribunal.The Tribunal held:'Since the application was inadvertently filed by the assessee under an incorrect provision, we direct the ld.CIT(E) to treat the application filed as per the applicable provision and in the light of the same, consider the case of the assesse on merits.'Core principles established include:A procedural mistake in filing an application under an incorrect sub-clause of section 12A(1)(ac) does not warrant outright rejection if the applicant is otherwise eligible;Old trusts registered under section 12AA are to apply for fresh registration under clause (i) of section 12A(1)(ac), without the need for provisional registration;Provisional registration under section 12AB is mandatory only for new trusts or those applying for the first time;Authorities must afford reasonable opportunity of hearing before rejecting applications;The Commissioner has the jurisdiction to treat an application under the correct provision and decide on merits, preventing loss of substantive rights due to procedural errors.Final determination was that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration under the correct provision with opportunity of hearing, ensuring compliance with the statutory scheme and principles of natural justice.