2019 (4) TMI 1030 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s.11 - absence of or non production of registration certificate u/s.12A - Revenue granting constant renewal u/s.80G - HELD THAT - The action of the Revenue granting constant renewal u/s.80G from time and again itself shows that the Revenue never doubted the registration u/s.12A of the Act for the assessee trust since one of the essential criteria for granting renewal of exemption u/s. 80G of the Act is that the Trust or Society must be registered u/s.12A or 12AA. The very fact that time and gain, the exemption was granted to the assessee trust itself shows that Revenue has agreed to the fact that trust is registered u/s.12A of the Act. Just because documentary evidences were not furnished by the assessee cannot be the ground for denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee. The assessee trust has made ample efforts for procuring information from the Department regarding duplicate copy of registration certificate. The Department was not able to provide any copy of the registration certificate. This demonstrates that the process of maintaining record in the Department is not proper and appropriate for which bona-fide assessee cannot be penalized. Furthermore, Revenue has accepted that the assessee trust is registered u/s.12A of the Act since all these years they have granted 80G renewal to the assessee trust and this fact is not disputed by the Department. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to grant benefit of exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee trust.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refusal of granting exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to lack of registration u/s.12A.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the assessee challenges the addition of ?9,40,110 made by the AO for denying exemption u/s.11 due to unavailability of registration u/s.12A.
2. The assessee, a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, failed to produce the registration certificate u/s.12A during assessment.
3. The AO denied exemption u/s.11, leading to the addition of ?9,40,110 in the assessee's income.
4. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision citing non-furnishing of the registration certificate.
5. The assessee argued that efforts were made to obtain the certificate, even filing an RTI application, but it was not provided by the Revenue.
6. The assessee contended that consistent renewal of exemption u/s.80G indicated registration u/s.12A, supported by documentary evidence.
7. The Tribunal noted the Revenue's failure to prove non-registration u/s.12A and emphasized that denial based on missing documents was unjustified.
8. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the onus is on the Revenue to prove non-registration and the assessee cannot be penalized for the Department's record-keeping lapses.
9. Considering the assessee's efforts and the consistent renewal of exemption, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant exemption u/s.11.
10. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside in favor of the assessee trust.