2023 (12) TMI 1350 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of registration application u/s. 12AB - form filed by the assessee i.e form 10AB rather than form No. 10A - HELD THAT - We noted that the ld. CIT( E) simpliciter rejected the assessee s application for registration only on the issue that assessee has not furnished form No. 10AC/10AD and the present application u/s. 10AB of the Act was filed u/s. 12A(1) (ac)(iv) of the Act seeking registration is not maintainable and hence rejected. We are of the view that assessee has not filed application in form 10A and filed form no. 10AB of the Act which is merely a technical breach which can be cured by allowing the assessee to file application in form 10A of the Act alongwith other details. Hence, we set aside the appeal and the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT (E) who will allow assessee to file application in form No. 10A along with other required details and the ld. CIT (E) will examine entire aspect relating to registration u/s. 12AB of the Act as well as u/s. 80G of the Act and then will decide the appeal accordingly - Appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of registration application u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act due to filing of incorrect form 10AB instead of form 10A.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves six appeals filed by different assessees challenging orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai, rejecting their applications for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were consolidated due to identical facts and issues. The primary issue in one of the appeals was the rejection of the application due to the assessee filing form 10AB instead of form 10A, which was considered an inadvertent error. The assessee argued that the CBDT had condoned the delay in filing form 10A and extended the due date, but the income tax portal did not permit the filing of a fresh form 10A.

The assessee trust contended that the rejection of the application solely based on the form filed was unjust, as the substance of the information in form 10AB was similar to form 10A, with some additional details required in form 10AB. The assessee's representative highlighted that the CBDT circulars had provided relief for such situations, and the assessee attempted to rectify the error by filing a fresh form 10A, which was not accepted by the portal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had rejected the application on technical grounds related to form submission.

Upon hearing both parties, the Appellate Tribunal noted that the rejection was based on the technicality of filing form 10AB instead of form 10A, which was deemed curable by allowing the assessee to file the correct form along with the necessary details. The Tribunal set aside the rejection and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner to permit the filing of form 10A and consider the registration under section 12AB and section 80G of the Act based on the complete information provided. The appeal in this particular case was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal followed a similar approach in the remaining appeals, setting them aside and remitting them to the Commissioner for reconsideration based on the principles established in the primary appeal. Ultimately, all appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the opportunity for rectification in cases of technical errors in form submissions.