2025 (6) TMI 234 - AT - Income Tax

Wrong clause selection in Form 10AB not fatal for Section 12A registration eligibility

ITAT Pune allowed the appeal and set aside CIT(E)'s order denying registration under Section 12A. The assessee had incorrectly cited clause (ii) instead ... Denying grant of registration u/s. 12A - incorrect clause [clause (ii) of S.12A(1)(ac) instead of clause (iii)] while filing Form 10AB - HELD THAT:- We note that similar issue came up for consideration before in the case of Kimaya Ashram Charitable Trust [2025 (1) TMI 1049 - ITAT PUNE] set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the issue afresh wherein as following the case of Vir Sewa Mandir [2024 (9) TMI 1510 - ITAT DELHI] we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee and accordingly deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the issue afresh after treating the original application as filed by the assessee under correct/desired section i.e. section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce specific documents/evidences desired by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in support of application for registration u/s 12A. In our humble view, wrong selection of section code/clause would not disentitle the assessee to its rightful claim and cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings initiated after the filing of the application. Hence, the Ld. CIT(E) ought to have given an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) who shall give an opportunity to the assessee to file the correct application - Appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered in the appeal is whether the application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by the assessee using an incorrect sub-clause code (clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac)) in Form No.10AB, can be treated as valid or maintainable. Specifically, the Tribunal examined:Whether an application filed under a wrong clause of section 12A(1)(ac) can be treated as filed under the correct clause upon request by the assessee.Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the application as non-maintainable on the ground of incorrect clause selection without considering the merits of the case.The applicability of CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024 regarding rectification of such errors.The procedural fairness in terms of granting an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect or file a fresh application.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue: Validity and maintainability of the application filed under incorrect clause of section 12A(1)(ac)Relevant legal framework and precedents: The application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act must be filed using Form No.10AB specifying the correct sub-clause of section 12A(1)(ac). Rule 11AA(2)(e) of the Income Tax Rules mandates submission of certain approvals along with the application. The CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 recognizes that incorrect selection of section code is a common and frequent error and allows for rectification by filing a fresh application within extended time. The Tribunal referred to coordinate bench decisions, notably in Vir Sewa Mandir vs CIT (Exemption) and Kimaya Ashram Charitable Trust vs CIT (Exemption), where similar errors were held to be rectifiable and the applications were remanded for fresh adjudication.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee inadvertently selected clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) while filing Form No.10AB. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application as non-maintainable on this ground without adjudicating the merits or drawing adverse inference against the assessee. The Tribunal found this approach overly technical and inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. It emphasized that the wrong selection of clause should not be fatal to the proceedings or deprive the assessee of its rightful claim.Key evidence and findings: The assessee admitted the error and requested the application be treated as filed under the correct clause. The Commissioner pointed out the absence of regular approval under section 80G(5)(vi), which is relevant for clause (ii), but did not consider the merits after rejecting the application. The Tribunal noted the absence of adverse findings on merits by the Commissioner.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, which explicitly allows rectification of such errors by filing a fresh application within the prescribed extended time. It also relied on prior Tribunal decisions where similar errors were held to be curable, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner ought to have allowed the assessee to rectify the defect or file a fresh application rather than outright rejecting it.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue supported the Commissioner's order of rejection on the ground of procedural non-compliance. The assessee argued for leniency and opportunity to rectify based on the Circular and precedents. The Tribunal favored the assessee's submissions, emphasizing the interest of justice and procedural fairness.Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner rejecting the application as non-maintainable and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It directed the Commissioner to treat the original application as filed under the correct clause 12A(1)(ac)(iii), grant the assessee an opportunity to respond to notices and produce documents, and decide the matter on merits after hearing the assessee. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to comply with procedural requirements without seeking adjournments.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held:'Wrong selection of section code/clause would not disentitle the assessee to its rightful claim and cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings initiated after the filing of the application.''The Ld. CIT(E) ought to have given an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect.''The application filed under one clause cannot be considered to be filed under another clause of section 12A(1)(ac) of the I.T. Act, 1961, but the error is curable by filing a fresh application or treating the application as filed under the correct clause for fresh adjudication.''In the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to decide the issue afresh after treating the original application as filed under the correct section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing.'Core principles established include the recognition of typographical or technical errors in statutory forms as curable defects, the necessity of procedural fairness in tax exemption registration proceedings, and adherence to CBDT Circular instructions permitting rectification of such errors.Final determination: The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes by setting aside the order rejecting the application and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits after allowing the assessee to rectify the error and comply with procedural requirements.