2023 (10) TMI 547 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - rejecting application u/s 12AB - mismatch in the name of assessee in PAN/Form-10AB and in translated copy of registration deed - HELD THAT - We find that such mistake may be inadvertent otherwise the registration number and PAN and the object of assessee are not in dispute. The assessee is in existence from 1934 and registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Charitable Trust vide registration No. Surat/A-736. The assessee was not given opportunity either to explain the mismatch or to get such mismatch to correct, thus, in our view, the assessee deserve one more opportunity to correct their name, wherever required, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(E) reconsider the registration of assessee u/s 12A afresh and pass order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before deciding the application afresh, CIT(E) shall grant opportunity of correcting the mismatch in the name and also to allow to make further submission to prove the object of assessee-trust and its activities. Assessee is also directed to file/furnish any other necessary information if so desired. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of the application of an assessee-trust for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a mismatch in the name of the trust in various documents.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Rejection of Application under Section 12AB:
The assessee-trust filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act, providing necessary details including the trust deed, registration certificate, and audited financial statements. However, a mismatch was found in the name of the trust as per different documents, leading to the rejection of the application by the ld. CIT(E) for lack of compliance. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the rejection citing the need for satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the trust's activities and alignment with its object.

Issue 2: Assessee's Submissions:
The authorized representative of the assessee argued that all required details were furnished at the time of application, emphasizing the trust's educational and religious nature. The representative highlighted that the trust had been in existence since 1934, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, with a consistent registration number. It was clarified that the mismatch in names was inadvertent, and the trust had fulfilled all conditions for registration.

Issue 3: Revenue's Contentions:
On the contrary, the Revenue contended that the mismatch in names across documents raised doubts about the trust's activities and objectives. The ld. CIT-DR supported the rejection based on the discrepancies and suggested a re-examination of the trust's activities if relief was considered.

Judgment and Decision:
After considering both parties' submissions and reviewing the case, the Tribunal noted the inadvertent nature of the name mismatch and the trust's long-standing existence and proper registration. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to rectify the name discrepancies and present further evidence regarding the trust's activities. The matter was remanded back to the ld. CIT(E) for a fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to provide additional information if necessary. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of addressing inadvertent errors in documentation and providing opportunities for rectification before rejecting an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment emphasized the need for a thorough review of trust activities and objectives while considering such applications.