Narmada Navnirman Abhiyan Vs CIT Exemptions (ITAT Mumbai)
Wrong Clause in Form 10AB Cannot End a Trust’s Case: ITAT Restores 12AB and 80G Applications
The issue
A trust seeking renewal of its regular registration selected the provision meant for converting provisional registration into regular registration. The CIT(E) rejected its Form 10AB application on that ground and then rejected its Section 80G application as a consequence. Could a curable error in selecting the clause bring both applications to an end without an opportunity to correct it?
The Mumbai ITAT answered that question in favour of a fresh examination in Narmada Navnirman Abhiyan v. CIT(E). It held that the trust should have been allowed to rectify the mistake and pursue its registration application under the appropriate provision. Since the 80G rejection depended on the registration rejection, that application was restored too.
How the error arose
Narmada Navnirman Abhiyan had been granted regular registration on 24 September 2021. The order records that this registration covered assessment years 2022–23 to 2026–27. On 30 September 2025, the trust filed Form 10AB seeking its continued registration.
In the form, however, the trust applied under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). That clause concerns a trust holding provisional registration and seeking regular registration. As the trust already held regular registration, the CIT(E) considered Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), the provision for renewal, to be the applicable clause.
