SMT NEELADEVI SURAJMAL BOTHRA CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI V. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 4471/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra Charitable Trust, which appealed against the decision of the CIT (Exemption) rejecting their application for registration under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT (E) had rejected the application primarily on the grounds of delay and failure to substantiate the genuineness of the trust's activities. The Tribunal found that the application was within the extended period prescribed by the CBDT and that a clerical error in citing the relevant clause should not defeat the substantive right of the trust to be considered for registration under section 80G(5).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 776628 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2025
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH R.SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUPENDRA SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Charitable institution
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2024-25 Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra Charitable Trust, 24B Miniland, Bhandup (West), Mumbai-400078. Vs. CIT (Exemption), Room No. 601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. PAN NO. AAPTS 0255 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 17/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(E)’] wherein he has rejected the application of the assessee for seeking approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the leaned CIT (Exemption) erred in not granting registration u/s 80G[5] of ITA, 1961, and just because a wrong option of fresh certificate was selected instead of renewal of the said certificate that too without granting an opportunity rectify the 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case ar granted provisional registration in Form No. 10AC dated 04.04.2022, which remained valid up to the Assessment Year 2024 25, and had been availing the benefit thereof in terms of section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income ‘the Act’). As per law, the assessee was required to file an application for regular registration by October, 2022. The assessee, however, filed its application belatedly on 02.05.2024 for registration under section 80G(5), but inadve clause (iv) in place of clause (iii) of sub During the pendency of this application, the assessee sought to rectify the mistake by filing another application on 17.12.2024. The Learned Commissioner of Income Ta however, considered only the application dated 17.12.2024 and rejected the same primarily on the ground of delay. In the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(E) also recorded that the assessee had not filed evidence substantiating gen under clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the Central Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the leaned CIT (Exemption) erred in not granting registration u/s 80G[5] of ITA, 1961, and rejecting the Application for the same just because a wrong option of fresh certificate was selected instead of renewal of the said certificate that too without granting an opportunity rectify the clerical error. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was granted provisional registration in Form No. 10AC dated 04.04.2022, which remained valid up to the Assessment Year 2024 25, and had been availing the benefit thereof in terms of section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). As per law, the assessee was required to file an application for regular registration by October, 2022. The assessee, however, filed its application belatedly on 02.05.2024 for registration under section 80G(5), but inadvertently mentioned clause (iv) in place of clause (iii) of sub-section (5) of section 80G. During the pendency of this application, the assessee sought to rectify the mistake by filing another application on 17.12.2024. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [‘Ld. CIT(E)’], however, considered only the application dated 17.12.2024 and rejected the same primarily on the ground of delay. In the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(E) also recorded that the assessee had not filed evidence substantiating genuineness of its activities as envisaged under clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the Central Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra Charitable Trust 2 ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the leaned CIT (Exemption) erred in not granting registration u/s rejecting the Application for the same just because a wrong option of fresh certificate was selected instead of renewal of the said certificate that too without granting e that the assessee was granted provisional registration in Form No. 10AC dated 04.04.2022, which remained valid up to the Assessment Year 2024– 25, and had been availing the benefit thereof in terms of section nafter referred to as ‘the Act’). As per law, the assessee was required to file an application for regular registration by October, 2022. The assessee, however, filed its application belatedly on 02.05.2024 for rtently mentioned section (5) of section 80G. During the pendency of this application, the assessee sought to rectify the mistake by filing another application on 17.12.2024. The x (Exemptions) [‘Ld. CIT(E)’], however, considered only the application dated 17.12.2024 and rejected the same primarily on the ground of delay. In the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(E) also recorded that the assessee had not filed uineness of its activities as envisaged 4. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the Central Printed from counselvise.com Board of Direct Taxes ( extended the time period for filing applications in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act till 30.06.2024. In the present case, the assessee filed its application on 02.05.2024, which was well within the extended period of limitation. The subsequent application dated 17.12.2024, in our considered view, was only in the nature of a rectification or continuation of the application originally filed on 02.05.2024, with the solitary purpose of conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee’s application was belated cannot be sustained in law. 5. The law is well settled that where a statutory authority is vested with the power to grant exercised in accordance with the statute and having regard to the substance of the matter rather than the form of application. A mere clerical error in citing the relevant clause cannot defeat a substantive right, particularly when the application itself was filed within the extended time prescribed by CBDT. The rejection of an otherwise valid application on a hyper denial of justice and runs contrary to the principle that procedural requirements are intended to advance, and not to obstruct, the cause of justice. Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), vide letter dated 25.04.2024, extended the time period for filing applications in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act till 30.06.2024. In the present case, the assessee filed its application 24, which was well within the extended period of limitation. The subsequent application dated 17.12.2024, in our considered view, was only in the nature of a rectification or continuation of the application originally filed on 02.05.2024, with purpose of correction of clause number. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee’s application was belated cannot be sustained in law. 5. The law is well settled that where a statutory authority is vested with the power to grant or refuse registration, such power has to be exercised in accordance with the statute and having regard to the substance of the matter rather than the form of application. A mere clerical error in citing the relevant clause cannot defeat a ht, particularly when the application itself was filed within the extended time prescribed by CBDT. The rejection of an otherwise valid application on a hyper-technical ground amounts to denial of justice and runs contrary to the principle that procedural requirements are intended to advance, and not to obstruct, the Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra Charitable Trust 3 ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 CBDT), vide letter dated 25.04.2024, extended the time period for filing applications in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act till 30.06.2024. In the present case, the assessee filed its application 24, which was well within the extended period of limitation. The subsequent application dated 17.12.2024, in our considered view, was only in the nature of a rectification or continuation of the application originally filed on 02.05.2024, with correction of clause number. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee’s application 5. The law is well settled that where a statutory authority is vested or refuse registration, such power has to be exercised in accordance with the statute and having regard to the substance of the matter rather than the form of application. A mere clerical error in citing the relevant clause cannot defeat a ht, particularly when the application itself was filed within the extended time prescribed by CBDT. The rejection of an technical ground amounts to denial of justice and runs contrary to the principle that procedural requirements are intended to advance, and not to obstruct, the Printed from counselvise.com 6. We accordingly hold that the application dated 02.05.2024, read with its rectification dated 17.12.2024, is within limitation and requires to be considered on merits. The i CIT(E) is therefore set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to consider the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G(5) afresh, after affording due opportunity to the assessee t genuineness of its activities in terms of section 80G(5)(i) to (v) of the Act, and to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner indicated above.” 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 17/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 6. We accordingly hold that the application dated 02.05.2024, read with its rectification dated 17.12.2024, is within limitation and requires to be considered on merits. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) is therefore set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to consider the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G(5) afresh, after affording due opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence in support of genuineness of its activities in terms of section 80G(5)(i) to (v) of the Act, and to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for in the manner indicated above.” In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 17/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra Charitable Trust 4 ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 6. We accordingly hold that the application dated 02.05.2024, read with its rectification dated 17.12.2024, is within limitation and mpugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) is therefore set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to consider the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G(5) afresh, after affording due o furnish evidence in support of genuineness of its activities in terms of section 80G(5)(i) to (v) of the Act, and to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /09/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Smt. Neeladevi Surajmal Bothra Charitable Trust 5 ITA No. 4471/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "