Denial of provisional registration u/s 12A for a typographical error set aside by ITAT

Denial of provisional registration u/s 12A for a typographical error set aside 

In a recent judgment, the ITAT Delhi has set aside order of CIT(Exemption) denying provisional registration u/s 12A for a typographical error in Form 10AB.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4068 (2024) (06) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(Exemption) rejecting application for provisional registration in form of 10AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The appellant assessee was 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 CIT(E) issued a questionnaire with a request to furnish the certain details/ documents / clarifications. The assesse responded the notice but the CIT(E) vide his order in Form No 10AB rejected the appellant’s application, treating as non-maintainable by stating the reason that the assessee ought to have made application under section 12A(1)ac(iii) of the Act instead of 12A(1)ac(ii) of the Act.

Before the Tribunal the assessee contended that the trust was in existence for almost 50 years and had duly been granted registration u/s 12A of the Act throughout. The rejection of its registration was unjustified on the mere ground that in the application made in Form No. 10AB, section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) had inadvertently been typed on account of typographical error instead of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.

It was contended that before the CIT(E), the assessee specifically submitted in writing that the

said typographical error had inadvertently occurred and 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.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had filed the duly rectified application on the prescribed form 10AB. The CIT(E) without considering the revised application of the appellant rejected it on the technical ground.

The Tribunal observed that as relied upon by the appellant, the Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case where assessee had simpliciter made a technical mistake in applying u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, set aside the order of CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication.

Following the judicial precedent, the Tribunal opined that the typographical error deserved to be corrected.

Accordingly, it set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded 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.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Object of assessment proceedings is not to find empirically correct solution on every fact issue – HC
• Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assessee filed revised computation during scrutiny
• Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT
• Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT
• Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT