IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.

BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrid Hearing)

I.T.A. No. 182 & 235/Asr/2025 Assessment Year.: 2024-25 Muktisar Welfare Club, Near Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Manga Petrol Pump Ajit Muktsar.

Cinema Road, C/o Rinku Pharma Muktsar, Muktsar, Punjab.

[PAN: AADAM2794B] (Respondent)

(Appellant)

Appellant by Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S.

Aggarwal, ITP Respondent by Sh. Jivandeep Singh Kahlon, CIT.

DR Date of Hearing 14.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2025

ORDER

Per: Udayan Das Gupta, J.M.:

This appeal is filed against the rejection of application dated 19/08/2024, filed by the assessee, for registration u/s 12A(1) (ac)(iii) of the Act 61, vide order of the Ld CIT (E) Chandigarh, dated 19/02/2025.

ITA No.182/Asr/2025

2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(E) erred in rejecting final registration applied by the assessee u/s 12A(l)(ac)(iii). The rejection order passed by CIT (E) in form

10AD is against the facts and provisions of law.

2. That The CIT(E) has erred in dismissing application for registration merely on a nontechnical ground/reason i.e original provisional application was not filed by selecting the appropriate clause, without pointing out any discrepancy on merits.

3. That the rejection order passed by the CIT (E) is required to be set aside and form 10AD be issued by allowing the final registration under section 12A(l)(ac)(iii) for AY's 2024-25 to 2028-29.

4. That The CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the expenses incurred, as per the financial statements, are consistent with the aims and objects of the society. That, the CIT(E) failed to appreciate that the reason for rejection is not embedded in the specified violation as per section 12AB(4).

5. That the rejection of the final registration by the Learned CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh, is unjustified. The CIT (E) failed to consider that the typographical error in the provisional registration application, where the provision was incorrectly cited under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) instead of Section

12A(1)(ac)(vi)(A), should not invalidate the final registration.

5 1. That CIT (E) failed to appreciate that the typo error in selecting the appropriate clause cannot be the reason for rejection. Furthermore, if the same had been pointed out during the provisional registration process, it could have been rectified. Therefore, the 'ejection of the final registration on this issue is not warranted.

6. That the ld. CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application without providing any adverse material regarding genuineness of activities of the society.”

3. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee society is registered under the society registration Act 1960 and is carrying out various charitable activities such as medical relief, providing education to poor, organising health camps, conducting awareness programmes against drugs abuse, and other child and women welfare activities.

4. The provisional registration applied on 12/02/2024 , was granted to the assessee on 20^th February, 2024 for the period AY 2024-25 to AY 2026-27, and thereafter, the assessee sought final registration in form 10AB on 19^th August, 2024, u/s 12A(1)(ac) ( iii) of the Act , which has been rejected on the ground of defects already existing in the original provisional application filed on 12^th February, 2024, as evident from para 3.2 of the rejection order , where the Ld CIT ( E ) has observed that the activities of the society has already commenced before the date of provisional registration and as such the registration granted was bad in law which also resulted in rejection of this present application filed in form 10AB u/s

12A(1)(ac) (iii) of the Act 61.

5. In course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that any defect in the provisional application cannot be a valid ground for rejection of the applica