ITAT Mumbai: Wrong Clause Clicked in Form 10AB Is Only a Technical Lapse, Not a Ground to Deny Section 12AB Registration

Background and Context

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the case of Alloy Steel Producers Association of India Vs CIT (Exemptions), dealt with a narrow yet practically significant issue:

Can an application for registration under Section 12AB be rejected solely because the assessee inadvertently selected the wrong clause in Form No. 10AB, even though all other conditions stood satisfied?

The dispute arose when the assessee, a charitable institution, applied online for registration/renewal under Section 12AB. Due to a typographical/selection error while filling Form No. 10AB, the assessee chose Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of the applicable Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) relied exclusively on this technical error to reject the application.

The Tribunal was called upon to decide whether such a purely procedural mistake could justify refusal of registration when the substance and intent of the application were otherwise clear.

Facts of the Case

Existing Registration and New Application

  • The assessee, Alloy Steel Producers Association of India, was already holding regular registration under Section 12AB.
  • This registration was granted via Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021, and was valid from A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27.
  • On 24.09.2025, the assessee filed an electronic application in Form No. 10AB, seeking continuation/renewal of registration.

The Error in Form 10AB

While completing Form No. 10AB:

  • The assessee intended to apply for renewal under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) (which governs renewal of existing registration).
  • However, by inadvertence/typographical error, the assessee selected Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), which is meant for conversion of provisional registration into regular registration.

The rest of the application, including the details of the trust and its activities, corresponded to a renewal scenario and not a provisional registration case.

Order of the CIT (Exemptions)

Reason for Rejection

While examining the application, the CIT(E) observed:

  • The assessee already had regular registration under Section 12AB valid up to A.Y. 2026-27.
  • Therefore, any further application for continuation had to be made under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii).
  • As the assessee had instead chosen Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in Form No. 10AB, the CIT(E) treated the application as having been filed under the wrong provision.

On this sole ground, the CIT(E):

  • Rejected the assessee’s application under Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) through order dated 26.03.2026 (in Form LOAD).
  • Simultaneously recorded that:
    • The existing registration obtained through Form No. 10AC dated 28.05.2021 would remain valid for A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27.
    • The assessee may avail remedies permissible under the Act.

No other deficiency in the application was noted; there were no adverse findings regarding:

  • Charitable nature of the objects, or
  • Genuineness of the activities.

Grounds of Appeal Before ITAT

The assessee challenged the order of the CIT(E) before the ITAT on the following broad grounds:

  1. Typographical/Clerical Error Only
    • The wrong mention of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) in Form No. 10AB was purely a typing/selection error.
    • Substantively, the assessee’s intention was to seek renewal of existing registration, not conversion of a provisional registration.