Clerical Error in 80G Form Cannot Deny Trust’s Entitlement to Full Registration.

By | October 30, 2025
0 Comment

Clerical Error in 80G Form Cannot Deny Trust’s Entitlement to Full Registration.

Issue

Can a charitable trust, which is already registered and eligible for a full five-year approval under Section 80G(5), be granted a shorter, provisional registration simply because it inadvertently filed its application under the wrong clause of the said section?

Facts

  • The assessee, a trust with a valid existing registration under Section 12AA, applied for registration under Section 80G to be eligible to receive tax-deductible donations.
  • Due to a clerical error, the trust filed its application under clause (iv) of Section 80G(5) (meant for new entities seeking provisional registration) instead of the correct clause (i) (meant for existing registered trusts seeking regular five-year approval).
  • Acting on the form as filed, the Commissioner (Exemption) granted the trust a provisional registration for only three years.
  • A subsequent application by the trust to extend this provisional registration was rejected.

Decision

  • The High Court ruled decisively in favour of the assessee.
  • It held that the trust’s substantive right to a full five-year registration cannot be taken away because of a mere inadvertent error in selecting the wrong clause on an application form.
  • The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Exemption) with a clear direction:
    • To treat the original application as if it had been correctly filed under clause (i) of Section 80G(5).
    • To process the application on its merits and grant the assessee the full five-year registration it was entitled to.

Key Takeaways

  • Substance Over Form: This ruling is a strong affirmation that the substance of a taxpayer’s eligibility should prevail over minor procedural or clerical errors. The authorities must look at the actual status of the applicant, not just the box ticked on a form.
  • Curable Procedural Defects: An inadvertent error in an application form is a curable defect and should not be used to deny a substantive legal right or benefit.
  • Duty of Adjudicating Authority: Tax authorities have a duty to apply their mind and assess an application based on the applicant’s actual eligibility and the documents submitted, rather than mechanically processing it based on an incorrect selection in a drop-down menu or form.
  • Protecting Entitlements: The decision ensures that entities that meet all the necessary conditions are not deprived of their statutory entitlements due to simple, non-malicious mistakes.
IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH ‘A’
MRT No. 1 Charitable Trust
v.
Commissioner Income (Exemption)
S.S. Viswanethra ravi, Judicial Member
and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member
IT Appeal Nos.1933 & 1934 (Chny) of 2025
SEPTEMBER  23, 2025
N. Arjun Raj, Adv. for the Appellant. Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT for the Respondent.
ORDER
S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member.- The appeal in ITA No. 1933/Chny/2025 filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the ld. PCIT/CIT, Chennai in Form No. 10AC granting provisional approval under section 80G(5)(iv) and 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The appeal in ITA No. 1934/Chny/2025 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.06.2025 by the ld. CIT(Exemption), Chennai rejecting approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act.
2. Both the appeals filed by the assessee involving common issue on an identical facts, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
3. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 1933/Chny/2024 for adjudication.
4. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 1103 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit stating the following reasons:
The captioned appeal was e-filed in the Registry of the Appellate Tribunal on 07.07.2025 and the said appeal was notified by the Registry that the same has been filed beyond the limitation period by 1103 days. The delay in filing the appeal before the Bench was neither willful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner/Appellant.
The Appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal is on account of the fact that the appellant had initially applied for provisional registration of 80G registration by wrongly filing an application under clause (iv) of section 80G(5) of the Act instead of clause (i) despite having the valid registration under the old regime leading to grant of registration under the new regime only for a period of three years i.e. (AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25). In consequence to the above provisional registration granted by the competent authority, the appellant had applied for final registration under the new regime by selecting the dropdown under clause (iii) which application got rejected by CIT(E), Chennai vide order dated 09.06.2025 by treating such application as not maintainable / filed beyond the due date. The said rejection order is also simultaneously challenged in ITA NO. 1934/2025 along with the present appeal.
The appellant being aggrieved by the recent rejection order and after noticing the mistake committed in the selection of wrong dropdown in the initial application filed in Form 10A and had resorted to file the present appeal with a prayer to treat the application filed in Form No.10A as an application filed under clause (i) for grant of final registration for assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27.
The main reason for delay in filing the appeal is on account of pursuing the procedure laid down for obtaining final registration in consequence to the provisional registration originally granted inasmuch as the grievance against the impugned order/provisional registration arises only upon the passing of the rejection order in treating the subsequent application as not maintainable.
Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is due to the complexities involved in understanding and implementing the provisions governing the transition of old regime to new regime which would constitute reasonable cause for admission of appeal for adjudication of issues on merits in the interest of justice.
5. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate submits that the assessee had initially applied for provisional registration of 80G registration by wrongly filing an application under clause (iv) of section 80G(5) of the Act instead of clause (i) despite having the valid registration under the old regime leading to grant of registration under the new regime only for a period of three years i.e. (AY 2022-23 to AY 2024-25). In consequence to the above provisional registration granted by the competent authority, the assessee had applied for final registration under the new regime by selecting the dropdown under clause (iii) which application got rejected by CIT(E), Chennai vide order dated 09.06.2025 by treating such application as not maintainable / filed beyond the due date. Thus, the ld. AR prayed to treat the application filed in Form No.10A as an application filed under clause (i) for grant of final registration for assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27.
7. The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
8. Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, we note that the assessee Trust incorporated in 11.12.2006, possessing valid registration under section 12AA of the Act dated 31.01.2008. After the insertion of new provisions for registration by the Finance Act, 2021, the assessee ought to have filed an application in Form 10A for approval under clause (i) of 1st proviso under section 80G(5) of the Act on or before the extended due date of 30.06.2024 for obtaining regular registration for 5 years. We note that the assessee inadvertently filed its application on Form 10A under clause (iv) of 1st proviso under section 80G(5) of the Act on 30.03.2022 for provisional registration. After processing the application in Form 10A, the ld. PCIT/CIT granted provisional registration in Form 10AC dated 06.04.2022 under clause (iv) of 1st proviso under section 80G(5) of the Act from 06.04.2022 to AY 2024-25 (3 years). Though the assessee had approval under section 80G of the Act even prior to insertion of new provisions for registration by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, it only obtained a provisional registration due to its mistake of filing an application under clause (iv) instead of clause (i).
9. We note that vide e-filing acknowledgement No. 663433280291024 placed at page 24 of the paper book, the assessee filed an application in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of 1st proviso to section 80G of the Act on 29.10.2024 to extend its provisional registration. While processing this application, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application vide order dated 09.06.2025. We find force in the argument of the ld. AR that the assessee is entitled to be registered for 5 years and merely for the reason that it had filed the application under incorrect clause, the same cannot be taken away. The same ratio has been held by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kaakkum Karangal v. ITO in Kaakkum Karangal v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 1561(Chny) of 2023, dated 31-5-2024]. As per the provisions of section 80G of the Act, the assessee being an old trust, it should have been filed an application under clause (i) only. Since clause (i) applies to the assessee, it could not have filed an application under clause (iv). Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to consider the application filed on 06.04.2022 as an application filed for registration under section 80G under clause (i) of the 1st proviso and then grant registration to the assessee for 5 years, i.e., AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
I.T.A. No. 1934/Chny/2025
10. Since we have remanded the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(E) to consider afresh the application of the assessee filed in Form 10A dated 30.03.2022 as an application filed for registration under section 80G under clause (i) of the 1st proviso, the appeal filed against the order of the ld. CIT(E) dated 09.06.2025 becomes infructuous and dismissed accordingly.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1933/Chny/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal in ITA No. 1934/Chny/2025 is dismissed.