9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1451 - AT - Income TaxRejection of application of assessee-trust for registration u/s 12AB - mismatch the name of the trust in different documents - HELD THAT - The assessee is in existence from 1952 and registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Charitable Trust vide registration No. B-99 Surat, and after enforcement of Wakf Act,1995 and on constituting Wakf Board on 02/12/1996 all trust of category B are govern by Gujarat Wakf Board. Considering the fact that the basic ground of rejection of application under section 12AB was mismatch in the name of assessee vis- -vis name shown in PAN, Application under Form10AB, and Trust deed, which is not intentional or deliberate but may due to inadvertence, otherwise the registration number with Charity Commissioner and PAN is not in dispute. We find that 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 under Section 12AB of the Act afresh and pass order in accordance with law.
Issues:
1. Rejection of application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act due to mismatch in the name of the trust in different documents. Detailed Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee-trust against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Ahmedabad, rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The rejection was based on a mismatch in the name of the trust in various documents. The assessee argued that the correct name of the trust was "THE QAMAR FREE LIBRARY," while different variations of the name were found in different documents due to inadvertence. The trust had been in existence since 1952 and was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The assessee contended that all necessary details were provided during the application process, including the trust deed, registration certificate, and audited financial statements. The Commissioner of Income Tax had not sought clarification or explanation from the assessee before rejecting the application, which the assessee deemed as a mechanical rejection without proper consideration. In response, the Revenue argued that the mismatch in the name of the trust across documents led to the rejection of the application. The Commissioner of Income Tax had not verified the object and activities of the trust due to the name discrepancy. The Revenue suggested that if the assessee was to be granted relief, the matter should be sent back to the Commissioner of Income Tax for a fresh examination of the trust's object and activities to ensure compliance with all requirements. After hearing both parties, the Appellate Tribunal found that while there was a name mismatch, it appeared to be inadvertent as the registration number, PAN, and the trust's object were consistent. The Tribunal noted that the rejection was primarily based on the name discrepancy and that the assessee had not been given an opportunity to explain or correct the mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Commissioner of Income Tax for a fresh consideration of the registration under Section 12AB. The Commissioner was directed to allow the assessee to correct the name discrepancy and provide any additional necessary information. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with an opportunity to rectify errors and present their case properly before rejecting an application based on technical discrepancies. The decision highlighted the need for a fair and thorough evaluation of all relevant factors before making a final determination in such matters.
|
