9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1473 - AT - Income TaxRejection of application for registration u/s 12AA based on a typographical error in the application form - as submitted due to a typographical/inadvertent error the application was filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) whereas the assessee was required to file application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) since it was an old trust already registered u/s 12 of the IT Act and was required to get registration under the new provisions of the IT Act HELD THAT - As relying on Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust 2024 (6) TMI 1400 - ITAT DELHI we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that Ld. CIT Exemption Pune erred in dismissing the application for registration merely on a technical ground and accordingly we deem it proper to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT Exemption Pune and direct him to treat the application already filed by the assessee as under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act instead of under clause (vi) of section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue in this case was whether the rejection of the application for registration under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act by the CIT, Exemption, Pune was justified. The specific questions considered were:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves the provisions of section 12A of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to the registration of trusts for tax exemption purposes. The relevant subsections are 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and 12A(1)(ac)(vi), which outline different requirements for registration based on the status and history of the trust. Precedents from similar cases, such as Shree Swaminarayan Gadi Trust vs. CIT and Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust, were considered, where the Tribunal allowed appeals in similar circumstances. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted the mistake in filing under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) instead of the correct section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) as a typographical error. It emphasized that such an error should not be a ground for outright rejection if the trust is otherwise compliant and genuine. The Tribunal reasoned that the CIT, Exemption, Pune should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to correct the error. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee trust was already registered under section 12A since 2002 and was seeking registration under the new provisions due to changes in the law. The Tribunal found that the error was inadvertent and not due to any lack of genuineness or compliance on the part of the trust. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the law by considering the precedents where similar errors were rectified without penalizing the applicants. It focused on the intent and compliance of the trust rather than the procedural mistake in the application form. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides. The Revenue's reliance on the procedural error was acknowledged, but the Tribunal found the assessee's argument for rectification more compelling, given the precedents and the nature of the error. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in rejecting the application based solely on a typographical error. It directed the CIT to treat the application as filed under the correct provision and to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal held that "the typographical error deserves to be corrected," and emphasized the need for "reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee." Core principles established:
Final determinations on each issue:
|
