2024 (9) TMI 1510 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) - application made in Form No.10AB of the Income-Tax Rules, section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) had inadvertently been typed on account of typographical error instead of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) - HELD THAT - It is evident that the appellant/assessee had committed a technical mistake in preparing the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. It was also brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee had filed revised Form 10AB for seeking registration under the correct provisions i.e. Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act which could have been considered by the CIT(Exemption). In the light of the latest decisions in Sri Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayakai Amman Kumbhabiskheka Mala Kuzhu and Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust s cases 2024 (6) TMI 1400 - ITAT DELHI the typographical error deserves to be corrected. Therefore, it would be appropriate and reasonable if the appeal is remanded back to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication by considering amended application of the appellant under the required provisions. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act due to a typographical error in Form 10AB.
2. Appeal against the order of CIT(Exemption) rejecting the application for registration.
3. Consideration of revised Form 10AB for seeking registration under the correct provisions.
4. Comparison with similar cases where typing errors were condoned.
5. Request for remand of the matter for fresh adjudication based on recent decisions.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi involved an appeal against the rejection of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act due to a typographical error in Form 10AB. The appellant had initially filed the form under the wrong section but later submitted a revised form correcting the error. The CIT(Exemption) rejected the application based on the technical mistake. The appellant contended that the rejection was unjustified as the error was rectified promptly, and all conditions for registration were met. The appellant highlighted instances where similar errors were condoned in other cases.

The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented and referred to relevant case laws, including the decision in the case of Sri Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayakai Amman Kumbhabiskheka Mala Kuzhu. In this case, it was held that a technical mistake in the application could be rectified, and the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication considering the corrected application. The Tribunal also cited the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust, where a typographical error was allowed to be corrected for the assessment year 2024-25.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the typographical error in the application deserved to be corrected. Relying on the recent decisions and the principle of fairness, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The judgment emphasized the importance of rectifying technical errors and ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to seek registration under the correct provisions of the Income Tax Act. Ultimately, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication based on the amended application submitted by the appellant.