JAL MINOCHER MISTRY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI V. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 6520/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation, which appealed against the decision of the CIT(Exemption), Mumbai, rejecting their application for approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the incorrect filing of Form 10AB under clause (iv)(B), which is applicable to trusts that did not claim exemption in previous years. The Foundation argued that this was a typographical error and that they had previously held an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions. The Tribunal considered precedents where similar technical mistakes were rectified and allowed the appeal, directing the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the application under the correct provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473324 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas vs. CIT, Krishan Jain Charitable Trust vs. CIT, Shree Swaminarayan Gadi Trust vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANT KUMAR C
• Assessee Lawyers: JASMINE AMALSADVALA
• Keywords: Set aside; Bonafide mistake; Charitable institution
• Section: 11; 12A; 12; 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6520/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2025-26) Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation 803-A C/o. A J. Mistry, Mistry Manor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 v/s. बनाम CIT(Exemption), Mumbai Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Cumballa Hill, MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Dr.Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAATJ8684K Appellant/अपीलाथ\u0007 .. Respondent/\b\tतवाद\r Assessee by : Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala Revenue by : Shri Hemant Kumar C. Date of Hearing 04.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions),Mumbai[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] rejecting approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 16.10.2024.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “General The Assessing Officer has erred not considering that Assessee Trust already had an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions of 80G and hence the 80G approval should not have been rejected. 2. Ground of objection Based on law. 2.1 The rejection of the application under Section 8 unlawful. 2.2 The rejection of the application under Section 80G(5) should be reconsidered based on merits. 2.3 The order passed by the CIT(E) is alleged to be bad in law and contrary to legal provisions. 3. Additional Grounds The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds at or before or at the time of appeal, to decide the application according to law 2. Facts in brief Form 10AB under clause(iv)(B) of 1 approval u/s 80G of the Act. ld.CIT(Exemption) on the ground that as the trust was already on 24.02.2006 and had 10AB under clause(iv)(B) which was meant for those trust which did not claim exemption in Previous years. 3. In the course of has submitted that the as erstwhile provisions dated 15/12/2009 bearing reference no DIT(E)/MC/80G/2784/2009 the new provisional registration was received vide registration number AAATJ8684KF20212 dated was from 24-09-2021 to AY 2024 end of the assessment year till which it was valid. ITA No. Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation 2. Ground of objection Based on law. 2.1 The rejection of the application under Section 80G(5) is incorrect and 2.2 The rejection of the application under Section 80G(5) should be reconsidered based on merits. 2.3 The order passed by the CIT(E) is alleged to be bad in law and contrary to 3. Additional Grounds ssessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds at or before or at the time of appeal, to decide the application according to law.” in brief are that the assessee a trust filed an application in Form 10AB under clause(iv)(B) of 1st proviso to section 80G(5) seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act. However, the same was rejected by the ld.CIT(Exemption) on the ground that as the trust was already claimed exemption, it was not correct in filing Form 10AB under clause(iv)(B) which was meant for those trust which did not claim exemption in Previous years. Therefore, he rejected the application. 3. In the course of hearing before us, the ld. Authorised Representative ssessee trust already had an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions dated 15/12/2009 bearing reference no DIT(E)/MC/80G/2784/2009-10.Under the new provisions pertaining to 8 the new provisional registration was received vide registration number dated 24-09-2021. The said provisional registration 2021 to AY 2024-2025. Renewal was to be made prior to the end of the assessment year till which it was valid. However, the Assessee Trust P a g e | 2 ITA No. 6520/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2025-26 Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation 0G(5) is incorrect and 2.2 The rejection of the application under Section 80G(5) should be 2.3 The order passed by the CIT(E) is alleged to be bad in law and contrary to ssessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds at or before or at filed an application in proviso to section 80G(5) seeking the same was rejected by the ld.CIT(Exemption) on the ground that as the trust was already incorporated it was not correct in filing Form 10AB under clause(iv)(B) which was meant for those trust which did not claim he rejected the application. Authorised Representative already had an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions dated 15/12/2009 bearing reference no 10.Under the new provisions pertaining to 80G, the new provisional registration was received vide registration number 2021. The said provisional registration to be made prior to the However, the Assessee Trust realized this late and filed application after the end of the relevant assessment year. In the application under 10AB which was lodged on 25 section for registration which was selected was 14A (iv) of first proviso to sub the said section since period of the provisional registration had already expired. There was an extension provided by CBDT for filing the applications of Trust upto 30 June 2024. The said form was filed on 25 May 2024. The assesse authorised representative appeared before the Officer with a prayer to consider the inadvertent error and process t said section. The officer however did not consider the same and passed the order for rejection of 80G application as the application was filed under section 80G(5) (iv) (B) and no such change was possible in the system pleaded that the mistake was inadvertent and occurred due to technical glitch. In this regard, she also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of Pune ITAT on the case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(2025) 170 Taxmann.com 720(Pune). order of the Revenue authorities. 4. We have carefully perused the facts of the case, considered rival submission and also the provisions of law in admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application which was lodged on 25- ITA No. Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation realized this late and filed application after the end of the relevant assessment In the application under 10AB which was lodged on 25 which was selected was 14A-Sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G, instead of clause (iii) of since period of the provisional registration had already as an extension provided by CBDT for filing the applications of Trust upto 30 June 2024. The said form was filed on 25 May 2024. The assesse authorised representative appeared before the Officer with a prayer to consider the inadvertent error and process the same as under clause (iii) of the said section. The officer however did not consider the same and passed the order for rejection of 80G application as the application was filed under section 80G(5) (iv) (B) and no such change was possible in the system pleaded that the mistake was inadvertent and occurred due to technical glitch. she also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of Pune ITAT on the case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(2025) 170 (Pune).Per Contra, the ld.DR has vehemently relied on the order of the Revenue authorities. We have carefully perused the facts of the case, considered rival submission and also the provisions of law in this regard. admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application -May-2024 but the section for registration P a g e | 3 ITA No. 6520/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2025-26 Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation realized this late and filed application after the end of the relevant assessment In the application under 10AB which was lodged on 25-May-2024, the clause (B) of clause section (5) of section 80G, instead of clause (iii) of since period of the provisional registration had already as an extension provided by CBDT for filing the applications of Trust upto 30 June 2024. The said form was filed on 25 May 2024. The assesse authorised representative appeared before the Officer with a prayer to he same as under clause (iii) of the said section. The officer however did not consider the same and passed the order for rejection of 80G application as the application was filed under section 80G(5) (iv) (B) and no such change was possible in the system. It was pleaded that the mistake was inadvertent and occurred due to technical glitch. she also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of Pune ITAT on the case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(2025) 170 the ld.DR has vehemently relied on the We have carefully perused the facts of the case, considered rival this regard. We find that admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application under 10AB the section for registration which was selected was 14A-Sub-clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub of section 80G, instead of clause (iii) of the said section error in the application. an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions. pertaining to 80G, the new provisional registration was received vide registration number AAATJ8684KF20212 provisional registration was from 24 situation, the only mistake committed by the assessee was mentio relevant clause(iii) in place of clause(iv).Evidently, inadvertent but a bonafide mistake only 4.1 We have also gone through the cited decision of hon in the case of Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas a technical mistake was involved in the case of a trust. aside and restored the matter back to the ld.CIT(Exemption).Relevant parts of the order are extracted below for re “Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust applied for registration in Form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)-ITEM(B) of the IT Act on 28.03.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirement of the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued on 21.05.2024 through ITBA porta upload various information detailed in notice. In compliance to the above notice, desired information was furnished by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found that the application was furnished u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, therefore said provisions of applicable in the assessee's case, accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected by him. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. ITA No. Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub n 80G, instead of clause (iii) of the said section due to inadvertent It is not disputed that the assessee trust an 80G approval under the erstwhile provisions. Under the new provisions the new provisional registration was received vide registration number AAATJ8684KF20212 dated 24-09-2021 and t provisional registration was from 24-09-2021 to AY 2024- the only mistake committed by the assessee was mentio relevant clause(iii) in place of clause(iv).Evidently, it is a typographical bonafide mistake only which is subject to correction. We have also gone through the cited decision of hon’ f Torna Rajgad Parisar Samajonnati Nyas(supra) where also such a technical mistake was involved in the case of a trust. The hon aside and restored the matter back to the ld.CIT(Exemption).Relevant parts of the order are extracted below for ready reference: Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust applied for registration in Form ITEM(B) of the IT Act on 28.03.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirement of the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, a notice was issued on 21.05.2024 through ITBA portal requesting the assessee to upload various information detailed in notice. In compliance to the above notice, desired information was furnished by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found that the u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the IT Act and the assessee trust has claimed of the IT Act, therefore said provisions of section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) applicable in the assessee's case, accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected by him. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. P a g e | 4 ITA No. 6520/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2025-26 Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation clause (B) of clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) due to inadvertent the assessee trust already had Under the new provisions the new provisional registration was received vide 2021 and the said -2025.In such a the only mistake committed by the assessee was mentioning the it is a typographical, which is subject to correction. ’ble Pune Bench (supra) where also such The hon’ble Bench set aside and restored the matter back to the ld.CIT(Exemption).Relevant parts of Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a trust applied for registration in Form ITEM(B) of the IT Act on 28.03.2024. With a view to verify the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and compliance to requirement of any other law for the time being in force by the trust/institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its l requesting the assessee to upload various information detailed in notice. In compliance to the above notice, desired information was furnished by the assessee trust. Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune found that the of the IT Act and the assessee trust has claimed section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) is not applicable in the assessee's case, accordingly the application filed by the assessee was rejected by him. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR appearing from the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was submitted that due to a typographical/inadvertent error the application was filed assessee was required to file application already registered u/s 12 of the IT Act and was required to get registration under the new provisions of the IT Act. It was further help of any tax professional and due to this the above mistake occurred. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee trust is genuine and was already registered Accordingly, it was submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have allowed further opportunity to the assessee trust to furnish reply in this regard. But, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in not providing reasonable opportunity clarification in this regard. passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT, [2024] 162 taxmann.com 772 (Surat situation Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. AR further relied on another decision of the Co Charitable Trust in ITA No.1553/Del/2024 order dated 05.06.2024, wherein under similar circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set further requested to direct him to consider the 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act. 4. .............. 5. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application under clause (iii) of Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (vi) of 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its application for registration. We find that under identical situations, a Co Krishan Jain Charitable Trust under :- \"9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) 12A of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking registration under the correct pr considered. 10. In consonance with the decision rendered by the co error deserves to be corrected. Accordingly, the 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 file of the CIT(E) for fre ITA No. Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation 3. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the rejection order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was submitted that due to a typographical/inadvertent error the application was filed u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) assessee was required to file application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the IT Act since it was an old trust of the IT Act and was required to get registration under the new . It was further submitted that application was filed by i help of any tax professional and due to this the above mistake occurred. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee trust is genuine and was already registered u/s 12A Accordingly, it was submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have allowed further opportunity to the assessee trust to furnish reply in this regard. But, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in not providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit the clarification in this regard. In support of the above contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Swaminaray , [2024] 162 taxmann.com 772 (Surat-Trib.) order dated 13.05.2024 wherein under identical situation Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. AR further relied on another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust in ITA No.1553/Del/2024 order dated 05.06.2024, wherein under similar circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and further requested to direct him to consider the application as filed under clause (iii) of have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the assessee trust was required to file application under clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (vi) of of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its application for registration. We find that under identical situations, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Krishan Jain Charitable Trust (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as \"9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application on 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of clause(iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of 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 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 P a g e | 5 ITA No. 6520/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2025-26 Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation side of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the rejection order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is unjustified. It was submitted that due to a u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) whereas the of the IT Act since it was an old trust of the IT Act and was required to get registration under the new submitted that application was filed by its own without the help of any tax professional and due to this the above mistake occurred. Ld. Counsel further u/s 12A w.e.f. 09.07.2002. Accordingly, it was submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune ought to have allowed further opportunity to the assessee trust to furnish reply in this regard. But, Ld. CIT, to the assessee to submit the In support of the above contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision Shree Swaminarayan Gadi Trust vs. Trib.) order dated 13.05.2024 wherein under identical situation Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld. AR further relied on ibunal in the case of Raj Krishan Jain Charitable Trust in ITA No.1553/Del/2024 order dated 05.06.2024, wherein under similar circumstances, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune and application as filed under clause (iii) of section have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record and also copy of case laws relied on by the assessee. We find that admittedly, the section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act but due to inadvertent error the application was filed under clause (vi) of section of the IT Act and for this reason alone Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune rejected its ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Raj (supra) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as \"9. As contended the appellant has committed a technical mistake in making the application section (1) of section of the Act. As pointed out the appellant has filed revised form 10AB for seeking which can also be ordinate Bench, the typographical 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 remand the matter back to the sh adjudication by considering amended application of the appellant under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) appellant. 11. In the result, the appeal filed 6. Respectfully following Tribunal (supra), we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel Exemption, Pune erred in dismissing the application for registration merely on a technical ground and accordingly we deem it proper to set Exemption, Pune and direct him to treat the clause (iii) of section 12A(1)(ac) 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. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce supporting documents/evidences in support of application for registration, otherwise, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed 4.2 In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the Court, in the case of Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC Doctrine of Substantial Compliance held as “33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at c accepted.” 6.2 The authorities below failed to appreciate that if the failure to consider the claim of option to discharge tax under ITA No. Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, or he can call for amended application from the 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.\" 6. Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra), 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 section 12A(1)(ac) of the IT Act instead of under clause (vi) of T Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce supporting ts/evidences in support of application for registration, otherwise, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC , wherein while deciding the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance held as under: 33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an ment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non-compliance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be 6.2 The authorities below failed to appreciate that if the failure to consider the claim of option to discharge tax under Section 115BAA P a g e | 6 ITA No. 6520/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2025-26 Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation of the Act, or he can call for amended application from the by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.\" ordinate Bench of this of the assessee that Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune erred in dismissing the application for registration merely on a technical aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, tion already filed by the assessee as under of the IT Act instead of under clause (vi) of section T Act and decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune in this regard and produce supporting ts/evidences in support of application for registration, otherwise, Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”. Hon'ble Supreme , wherein while deciding the 33. A fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance with an ment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with liance of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so ompliance should be 6.2 The authorities below failed to appreciate that if the failure to Section 115BAA on the ground of failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10 period stipulated under Section 115BAA assessee. 5. Respectfully following the ld.CIT(E) was not justified registration merely on a technical ground set aside with a direction to him assessee decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee who would necessary documents/evidences in support of 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 Sd/- KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (\u000eया\tयक सद\u0013य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai \bदनांक /Date: 10.02.2025 अ\fनक ेत \u0010संह राजपूत/\u0017टेनो आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत ITA No. Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10 Section 115BAA would cause genuine hardship to the Respectfully following the cited decisions (supra), we was not justified in dismissing assessee’s registration merely on a technical ground. Accordingly, the impugned order is with a direction to him to treat the application already filed by the assessee decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable nity of hearing to the assessee who would produce supporting documents/evidences in support of its application for registration In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for d in the open court on 10.02.2025. Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL PRABHASH SHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सद\u0013य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : P a g e | 7 ITA No. 6520/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2025-26 Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10-IC within the would cause genuine hardship to the (supra), we hold that application for . Accordingly, the impugned order is to treat the application already filed by the assessee decide the same as per fact and law after providing reasonable produce supporting its application for registration. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. अपीलाथ\b / The Appellant 2. \u000bथ\b / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0011 / CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Mumbai 5. गाड\u001b फाईल / Guard file. ITA No. Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation / The Appellant / The Respondent. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, स\u000bािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. P a g e | 8 ITA No. 6520/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2025-26 Jal Minocher Mistry Memorial Foundation //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) / ITAT, Bench, "