Form 10AB Error – ITAT Confirms Section 8 Firm Still Charitable

Case Details: Kasi Visvanathar Koviloor Foundation vs. DCIT/ACIT (exemptions) - [2025] 174 taxmann.com 489 (Chennai-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• ABY T. Varkey, Judicial Member & Jagadish, Accountant Member
• N.V. Lakshmi, Adv. for the Appellant.
• R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee was a Section 8 Company formed to discharge charitable activities, viz., providing education to people experiencing poverty, addressing hunger and food insecurity, etc. It had applied for registration under section 12AB in Form No. 10AB. While doing so, the assessee inadvertently mentioned the nature of its activity in Column-3 of Form No. 10AB as ‘religious-cum-charitable’. On being asked, the assessee clarified that the nature of the activities was declared itself as ‘religious-cum-charitable’ by oversight/inadvertent mistake. It ought to have filled in Column-3 ‘charitable’ only.

The Commissioner (Exemptions) registered the assessee as a ‘religious-cum-charitable institution’. The aggrieved assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Chennai Tribunal held that the assessee’s classification as a ‘religious-cum-charitable trust’ happened because of a mistake that crept into Column-3 (Form 10AB) while filling out the electronic online portal. Therefore, the inadvertent mistake while filling out Column-3 can’t be a reasonable ground to grant registration under section 12AB by wrongly classifying it as a ‘religious-cum-charitable institution’. Such a mistake could not change its original character, which, per its Memorandum of Association, is a Charitable Institution.

Therefore, the order was set aside, and the assessee was allowed to file a physical form of Form 10AB before the Commissioner (Exemption), showing the nature of the activity as ‘charitable’, and the Commissioner (Exemption) was directed to consider the same and examine its eligibility under the law.

List of Cases Referred to

• Shri Balkrishna Shudhhadwait Sthanik Mahasabha v. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 586 (Surat-Trib.) (para 5)
• Associated Journals Ltd. v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. [2006] 69 SCL 311 (SC) (para 5)
• Arya Samaj Safdarjung Enclave v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 2810 (Delhi) of 2022] (para 5)
• United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar AIR 1997 SC 3 (para 5)
• Owners & Parties interested in MV Vali Pero v. Fernandeo Lopez AIR 1989 SC 2206 (para 6).