IMDR Alumni Association Vs CIT (ITAT Pune)
Wrong AY in Form 10AB Is a Correctable Slip, Not a Reason to Shut the 80G Door — CIT(E) Directed to Reconsider Application Afresh
Summary:
IMDR Alumni Association v. CIT (Exemption), ITA No. 2341/PUN/2026, order dated 03.09.2026 — ITAT Pune
The Pune ITAT dealt with rejection of an application for approval u/s 80G where the assessee had inadvertently selected the wrong AY in Form No. 10AB, immediately withdrew the incorrect application & filed a fresh application mentioning the correct AY. The Tribunal held that considering the facts & principles of natural justice, the assessee deserved another opportunity & accordingly restored the matter to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
Facts — Section 8 Company Seeking Regular 80G Approval
The assessee, IMDR Alumni Association, was registered u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. It had earlier been granted provisional approval u/s 80G in Form No. 10AC. Thereafter, pursuant to the amended provisions governing section 80G approval, it uploaded an electronic application in Form No. 10AB on 30.09.2025 for permanent approval.
During processing of the application, the CIT(E) called for clarifications & information, which according to the order were duly furnished by the assessee.
The CIT(E), however, noticed that the assessee had filed two applications on 30.09.2025, one u/s 80G(5)(ii) & another u/s 80G(5)(iii). Both applications were ultimately rejected by orders dated 27.03.2026.
The Problem — One Wrong AY Selected While Filing Form 10AB
Before the ITAT, the assessee explained the circumstances which resulted in the two applications.
Its existing approval u/s 80G was stated to be valid up to AY 2026-27 & therefore the subsequent application was required to be made for AY 2027-28.
However, while electronically filing Form No. 10AB, the assessee inadvertently selected AY 2026-27 instead of AY 2027-28.
On noticing the mistake, the assessee did not seek to pursue the incorrect application. It immediately withdrew the wrongly filed application & submitted a fresh Form No. 10AB mentioning the correct AY 2027-28.
Thus, according to the assessee, there was no substantive defect in its entitlement to seek approval. The controversy arose essentially because of an incorrect AY selected while filing the electronic form.
CIT(E) Rejected Both Applications
The grievance of the assessee was that instead of appreciating the sequence of events & examining the corrected application on merits, the CIT(E) rejected both applications in a mechanical manner.
The assessee further contended that the CIT(E) had ignored not merely the submissions accompanying Form No. 10AB but also the additional submissions & information furnished in response to notices issued during the proceedings.
It was therefore pleaded that the assessee had a good case on merits & should be granted an opportunity to properly substantiate its claim before the lower authority.
The Revenue, on the other hand, relied upon the orders passed by the CIT(E).
ITAT — Mistake Was Immediately Corrected
The Pune ITAT considered the factual explanation furnished by the assessee.
It specifically noted the assessee’s contention that AY 2026-27 had been inadvertently selected instead of AY 2027-28, whereupon the incorrect application was immediately withdrawn & a fresh Form No. 10AB containing the correct AY was filed.
The Tribunal also noticed the assessee’s grievance that despite this correction, both applications had been rejected, without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to explain the matter with supporting evidence.
Natural Justice — One More Opportunity Deserved
Considering the facts, submissions & principles of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case by producing the relevant evidence & information.
Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(E) & directed the authority to de novo consider the application in accordance with law.
The assessee’s appeal was consequently allowed for statistical purposes.
What the Decision Actually Holds
The scope of the ruling deserves some care.
The ITAT has not itself granted final approval u/s 80G to the assessee. Nor has it recorded a categorical proposition that every mistake in selecting an AY in Form 10AB must automatically be ignored.
Instead, the Tribunal has recognised that in the peculiar facts — where the wrong AY was inadvertently selected, the defective application was immediately withdrawn & a corrected application was filed — outright rejection without permitting the assessee to properly explain the circumstances was inappropriate.
The matter therefore returns to the CIT(E), who must now examine the corrected application & the supporting material afresh in accordance with law.
Author’s Comment
The ruling is a useful reminder in the increasingly portal-driven registration regime that a clerical error in an electronic form should ordinarily not eclipse the substantive claim itself, particularly when the mistake is promptly identified & corrected.
Selection of AY 2026-27 instead of AY 2027-28 did not represent any change in the charitable objects or activities of the assessee. It was essentially an error in completing Form 10AB. Where the assessee immediately withdrew the incorrect application & filed another mentioning the correct AY, the more appropriate course was to examine the corrected application rather than mechanically reject both.
At the same time, the ruling remains a remand order based substantially on principles of natural justice. It should therefore not be stretched into a blanket proposition that all defects in Form 10AB are automatically curable.
Nevertheless, the practical message is valuable: tax administration may be electronic, but justice cannot become a drop-down menu — selecting the wrong AY by mistake should not, by itself, select “Reject” for an otherwise examinable 80G claim.
Cases Discussed
- No judicial precedent was discussed or relied upon by the Tribunal in the order.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT, PUNE
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT (Exemption), Pune passed u/Sec.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT (Exemp) rejecting the application filed for approval u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is registered under section 8 of the Companies Act 2013.The assessee was granted provisional registration u/s. 80G of the Act in form no.10AC . Subsequently, as per the amended, provisions of section u/sec80G of the Act, The assessee for the purpose of permanent registration has uploaded e-application in Form.No.10AB on 30.09.2025. Whereas the office of the CIT (Exemption) has issued notice for the clarifications and information and the assessee has duly complied with the details. Whereas the CIT (Exemption) observed that the assessee has filed two applications on 30.09.2025 under section 80G(5)(ii) and u/sec80G(5)(iii) of the Act and the CIT(E) has rejected both the application vide order dated27.03.2026. Aggrieved by the CIT (Exemption) orders, the assessee has filed the appeals before Hon’ble Tribunal.
3. At the time of hearing Ld. AR submitted that CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the assessee’s application U/sec 80G of the Act ignoring the submissions made along with the application in Form.No.10AB and also additional submissions and information filed in compliance to the notices issued. The Learned AR further submitted that, the approval u/sec80G of the Act was valid up to A.Y.2026-27 and the assessee has to file subsequent application for registration for A.Y.2027-28. Whereas while filling the application, the asseesse has inadvertently selected wrong assessment year i.e A.Y. 2026-27 instead of A.Y.2027-28 and immediately withdrew the incorrect application and filed new application Form. No 10AB mentioning the correct assessment year. Whereas the CIT (Exemption) has rejected the both applications in mechanical manner. Further the learned AR emphasized that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity before the lower authorities to substantiate the claim. Per Contra Ld DR relied on the order of the CIT (Exemption).
4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed application before the CIT (Exemption) for approval under section 80G of the act. Whereas the assessee in the course of hearing has filed details in compliance to the notices issued by the CIT (Exemption) , the Ld.AR emphasized that the asseesse has inadvertently selected wrong assessment year i.e A.Y. 2026-27 instead of A.Y.2027-28 and immediately withdrew the incorrect application and filed new application Form. No 10AB mentioning the correct assessment year. Whereas the CIT (Exemption) has rejected the both applications in mechanical manner and prayed for an opportunity before the lower authorities to explain the details with the evidences. We consider the facts, submissions and principle of natural justice and shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT (Exemption) to de novo consider the application as per the law and we allow the ground of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 03rd September, 2026.
