Sat Guru Saran Niwas Trust Vs CIT Exemption (ITAT Agra)
Section 12AB: Clerical Error in Form 10AD Cannot Deprive Trust of Registration Under Its Correct Religious-cum-Charitable Character
Background of the Dispute
The assessee challenged an order dated 6 February 2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow, under section 12AB(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The dispute did not concern an outright refusal of registration. Registration had been granted, but the renewed registration described the trust’s activities as “charitable”, whereas the assessee claimed that its correct character was “religious cum charitable”.
The assessee sought correction of this description in Form No. 10AD, contending that it was inconsistent with its renewal application and earlier registration.
The Tribunal considered whether an apparent technical or clerical error in the registration order should be corrected after verification of the relevant records.
Delay Condoned on Medical Grounds
The appeal was filed on 9 September 2026, with a delay of approximately 132 days, as reported by the Registry.
In its condonation application, the trust explained that its Secretary, Mr. Shabd Sukh Baijal, had suffered from acute blindness and undergone surgery during the relevant period. After partial recovery, he became aware of the impugned order and arranged for filing the appeal.
The explanation was supported by an affidavit and a medical certificate.
The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted affidavit as establishing sufficient cause, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.
Renewal Application Expressly Disclosed Both Activities
The assessee’s authorised representative submitted that the institution had been registered with the Sub-Registrar, Agra, since 28 March 1965.
According to the assessee, it was primarily a religious organisation, with charitable activities undertaken by virtue of, and incidental to, its religious character. The combined description “religious cum charitable” therefore reflected its actual nature.
The renewal application in Form No. 10AB, filed on 28 September 2025, expressly described the activities as “religious & charitable” at point No. 3.
The assessee also relied on its earlier registration order in Form No. 10AC dated 24 September 2021, which, according to its submissions, correctly recorded the nature of its activities.
However, serial No. 2A of the renewed Form No. 10AD described the activities only as “charitable”.
The grievance was thus an inconsistency within the registration record, rather than a request to introduce a newly claimed religious character.
Assessee Alleged Change Without Hearing
The authorised representative submitted that the Commissioner had issued no query or show-cause notice concerning the proposed characterisation of the activities.
The assessee argued that the departure from its application and earlier registration had occurred without justification or an opportunity to explain its position.
It pointed to the insertion of serial No. 2A in Form No. 10AD through the Income Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2023, with effect from 23 June 2023, and suggested that the discrepancy appeared clerical.
The assessee further stated that a rectification application under section 154 was pending before the Commissioner, but the correction had not been made.
The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order.
Tribunal: Technical Error Cannot Defeat Correct Nomenclature
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was an old registered trust and that renewals had consistently been granted for religious-cum-charitable purposes.
It considered that the discrepancy appeared to have arisen as a clerical error following the change in Form No. 10AD.
The Tribunal held that an existing technical error could not deprive the assessee of its legal entitlement to registration under the correct nomenclature.
However, it did not direct an unconditional substitution of the description solely on the basis of the submissions made before it.
Instead, the Commissioner was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing, verify its factual submissions and make appropriate corrections in the impugned order.
Scope of the Relief
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The direction concerned verification and correction of the description of activities in the existing registration order. It did not amount to a fresh adjudication of every condition attached to registration or a finding granting exemption for any particular year.
The operative relief was a direction to examine the historical and application records and correct the registration order appropriately after hearing the assessee.
Author’s Comments
The decision highlights the importance of accuracy in registration particulars. A description appearing in a statutory approval should reflect the institution’s established character and the information disclosed in its application.
Where an apparent discrepancy exists between the renewal application, earlier registration and renewed order, the authority should verify those records and address the inconsistency.
The assessee’s position was strengthened by the continuity of its earlier religious-cum-charitable description and its express disclosure of both activities in Form No. 10AB.
The ruling supports correction of a technical mistake; it does not permit an unsupported change in the nature of an institution’s activities. The Tribunal preserved that distinction by requiring factual verification and a hearing before correction.
For practitioners, comparing the particulars in the issued Form No. 10AD with the application and previous approval can help identify such errors promptly and place a precise correction request before the authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AGRA
This assessee’s appeal is directed against the impugned dated 06.02.2026 passed on application No CIT Exemption, Lucknow/2025-26/12AA/20959 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(E)] u/s. 12AB(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), wherein ld CIT(E) has granted conditional registration to assessee.
2. At the very outset, according to registry’s report, the appellant filed this appeal on 09.09.2026 against the impugned order dated 06.02.2026 by a delay of about 132 days. The reasons mentioned in assessee’s delay condonation application are that the Secretary of the assessee trust, Mr. Shabd Sukh Baijal, was suffering from acute blindness and underwent surgery during the relevant period. After his partial recovery, he came to know about the impugned order and thus filed the appeal belatedly. The Secretary of the trust has filed an affidavit along with the medical certificate. Prayed to condone the delay. In view of the uncontroverted affidavit, the cause shown is deemed as sufficient. The delay is accordingly condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
3. At the very outset, ld AR has submitted that the appellant is a religious and charitable society registered with Sub Registrar, Agra, since 28.03.1965. The appellant is primarily a religious organization. The charitable activities are conducted by virtue of and incidental to its religious character. The compound description ‘Religious Cum Charitable’ is the accurate and legally appropriate classification. Appellant moved an application for renewal of registration in form 10AB on 28.09.2025 in which the nature of activities were expressly stated as ‘religious & charitable’ at point no. 3 of the said form. At serial no. 2A of form 10AD with respect to the recording of nature of activities was inserted, vide Income Tax (Eleventh-Amendment) Rules, 2023 w.e.f. 23.06.2023. The entry in serial no. 2A of the impugned form 10AD reads as ‘charitable’. This entry is directly inconsistent with and contradicted with the appellant’s own application in form no. 10AB which is part of same record. The prior order of registration in form 10AC dated 24.09.2021 correctly recorded the nature of activities consistent with the appellant’s character. The impugned form no. 10AD issued upon renewal u/s 12AB(1)(b) departs from the prior order without any justification on record and in contradiction of appellant’s application, thus, making error apparent on the face of record. Ld CIT(E), while assessing the application for renewal, did not issue any query, show cause notice or advise nor afforded any opportunity of hearing to the assessee with respect to the characterization of the appellant’s activities as ‘religious cum charitable’. The change in serial no. 2A of form 10AD to ‘charitable’ was, therefore, made without jurisdiction and without basis, seeming to be clerical error, thus, requires rectification. Ld AR, further submitted that assessee’s rectification application u/s 154 of the Act is also pending before ld CIT(E) for correction but for no avail. Ld AR has prayed to direct ld CIT(E) to correct the impugned renewal order accordingly by correct mention of ‘religious cum charitable’ in Form 10AD after hearing the assessee.
4. Ld CIT (DR) supports the impugned order.
5. We notice that appellant is an old trust and was registered. Renewals were being granted for, ‘religious cum charitable’ purposes consistently. It appears that due to the change in the form no. 10AD at serial no. 2A vide Income Tax (Eleventh-Amendment) Rules, 2023 w.e.f. 23.06.2023, the aforesaid clerical error seems to have occurred. Merely on the existing technical error, assessee cannot be deprived of his legal entitlement for the registration against correct nomenclature. In such circumstances, we direct the ld CIT(E) to afford assessee an opportunity of hearing and after verifying the assessee’s factual submissions, appropriate corrections be made in the impugned order. We order accordingly. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on – 12.10.2026
