1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order dated 15-03-2024 of the CIT(Exemption), Delhi, in form of 10 AB of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after the Act) vide application no CIT (Exemption) Delhi/2023-24/12AA/12485 pertaining to A.Y. 2024-25.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is a charitable trust. The assessee filed application for registration the trust in form no.10AB under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) issued a questionnaire dated 08.11.2023 with a request to furnish the certain details/ documents / clarifications. The assessee responded the notice but the CIT(E) vide his order in Form no 10 AB on 15-03-2024 rejected the appellant's application, treating as non-maintainable by stating the reason that the assessee ought to have application under section 12A(1)ac(iii) of the Act instead of 12 A(1)ac (ii) of the Act .
4. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed the appeal by raising the following grounds :-
“1. That the learned CIT (Exemption) has erred both on facts and in law in not granting registration to the appellant Trust (which has been existing since 14.01.1975 and had duly been granted registration u/s 12A of the Act throughout) on the mere ground that in the application made in Form No. 10AB of the Income Tax Rules, section 12A(1)(ac) (ii) of the Income Tax Act had inadvertently been typed on account of typographical error instead of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.
2. That the learned CIT (Exemption) has further failed to appreciate that on 04.03.2024, it had duly been submitted in writing that the said typographical error (had inadvertently occurred) be read as clause (iii) instead of clause (ii) of the Income Tax Act and had also revised the form by correcting the said typographical error and as such the application made on Form 10AB was an application for the grant of registration to the appellant trust which and had also been granted provisional registration.
3. That the learned CIT (Exemption) has however rejected the said application on the mere ground that as no functionality is available on the ITBA module to transfer the same the registration sought u/s 12A of the Act cannot be granted to it.
4. That in so doing he has failed to appreciate that even otherwise, an appropriate application having been made within the time and revised form had also been furnished correcting the typographical error, the application made could not have been 'rejected' since the appellant society had satisfied all the conditions for the grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act. Infact, he has failed to appreciate that the application filed on Form 10AB had duly been processed and examined by him on earlier dated when he found no lacuna or any other infringement warranting refusal for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act.
5. That further the learned CIT (Exemption) has acted highly arbitrarily when similar typing errors made in the cases of Pracheen Shri Aggarwal Digamber Jain Panchayat Delhi and Jain Society for the Protection of Orphans for India had been condoned; whereas in the instant case similar error had not been condoned.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant is a charitable trust and was established on 31.03.1958. He also submitted that trust has filed form 10AB on 30.09.2023 however, inadvertently due to typing error in column No.2 was mentioned as ‘01-Sub-Clause(ii) of clause (ac) of Sub-section (1) of section 12A’ had been typed instead of clause (iii) of clause (ac) of section (1) of section 12A of the Act. He submitted that appellant has filed duly rectified revised form 10AB of the Act but application was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E).
6. Reliance was placed on the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench in the case of Sri Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayakai Amman Kumbhabisheka Mala Kuzhu Vs. ITO (Exemptions) reported in [2024] 159 taxmnan.com 502 (Chennai- Trib.). In this case the ITAT has held as under :-
“5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, it is noted that the assessee has simpliciter made a technical mistake in applying u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. It was informed to the Bench by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that even now the assessee has filed fresh Form No.10AB seeking registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, which can also be considered. In our view, the same purpose will be served by adjudicating the same application. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(Exemption) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication, either considering the subsequent application of assessee u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act or he can call a fresh application from the assessee. In term of the above, matter restored back to the file of the CIT(Exemption).”
7. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(E) and submitted that appellant has not moved the application as per Act. He moved the application under Section 12A (1) ac (ii) which was not maintainable. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the CIT(E) be upheld.
8. From the perusal of the record it is evident that the appellant has made an application form 10AB for registration of trust under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. The appellant has filed the duly rectified application on the prescribed form 10AB. The Ld. CIT(E) without considering the revised application of the appellant rejected it on the technical ground. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant also stated that Ld. ITAT has considered the similar issue in which the Ld. CIT (E) order was set aside by the ITAT Chennai Bench.
9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking registration under the correct provision i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) which can also be considered.
10. In consonance with the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, the typographical error deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order dated 15.03.2024 of Ld. CIT (E) is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(E) dated 15-03-2024 and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication by considering amended application of the appellant under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, or he can call for amended application from the appellant.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
