" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1372/MUM/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: N.A.) Talk to me Flat No. 7, 2nd Floor, 245, Asuda Kutir Co-op. Hou. Soc. Ltd., Waterfield Road, Near Barista Coffee Centre, Bandra West S.O., Mumbai-400050 v/s. बिधम CIT(Exemption), Mumbai 601, 6th Floor, MTNL Tel. Ex. Building, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADTT6117G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Biswanath Das सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 17.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)”] dated 29.12.2024. u/s. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1372/Mum/2025 Talk to me “1. The Learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for final registration u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without granting any opportunity to be heard in this matter as required under the second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act. That not giving opportunity is against the principle of natural justice and the order may be set aside. 2. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application relying on conditions specified in sub clause (B) of first proviso to section 80G(5), that the application can be made under this clause only if the trust has not claimed any exemption u/s. 11, 12 or 10(23C) before the date of application. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in not appreciating that the said condition has been deleted from sub- clause B with effect from 01\" October, 2024 and rejection owing to non- compliance to such condition is invalid and illegal. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration u/s. 80G merely on an inadvertent error in selecting the correct sub-section while filing the application for final registration in Form 10AB leaving the appellant remedy less. That rejecting the application based on an error/technical irregularity is unjustified. 4. The appellant craves to leave, add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application for filing registration u/s 80G(5)(iv)(B) in Form 10AB on 30.06.2024. The assessee made requisite compliance with the notices issued by Ld. CIT(E). However, vide order dated 29.12.2024, Ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application on the ground that subclause B of clause (iv) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) does not apply, and the assessee had wrongly made the application under subclause (iv) instead of subclause (iii). 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. It has been submitted that no show cause or opportunity was given before rejecting the assessee’s application by Ld. CIT(E). Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee made an inadvertent error in selecting the subclause while filing the application. Ld. CIT(E) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to rectify the technical irregularity, thereby leaving the assessee P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1372/Mum/2025 Talk to me remedy less. He has, therefore, requested for setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and giving an opportunity for fresh consideration of his application. Ld. DR has not objected to the above proposition. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available before us. We are of the view that Ld. CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application merely on a technical defect, more so, without giving any show cause or opportunity to the assessee. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). He is directed to consider the matter afresh and decide the assessee’s application on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee to rectify the error in the application, if required. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 24.o4.2025 अननक ेत स ुंह र जपूत/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1372/Mum/2025 Talk to me 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "