2024 (4) TMI 1051 - AT - Income Tax

Rejecting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) - name mismatch between the certificate of registration issued by the Charity Commissioner Vadodara and the PAN database - assessee/applicant submitted that the variation in nomenclature arises due to the English translation of the organization s name - HELD THAT - Name of the assessee/applicant trust has not changed but in translation from Gujarati to English words in Gujarati Bhutpurva Vidhyarthi Mandal is translated in English as Alumni Association . Instead of Bhutpurva Vidhyarthi the word Alumni is translated in English and for the word Mandal it is translated as Association . Otherwise the entity is the same as it is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act which is proved from the Trust Registration Number mentioned in Registration Certificate in Gujarati and translated in English. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the applicant trust has got provisional registration in the name Parul University Alumni Association on the basis of legal documents like Trust Registration Certificate and Memorandum of Association. Same documents were also filed with the application form applied in the same name for registration in Form 10AB. Hence name of the assessee/applicant trust is consistent with it s legal entity and it has remained the same before all Government Authorities. In our considered view the assessee/applicant trust has been able to reasonably explain the mismatch between the name as appearing in the legal documents submitted by the assessee/applicant trust before CIT (Exemptions) and the name as appearing in the PAN database. In view of the detailed explanation in support of the alleged mismatch given by the assessee/applicant trust we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the application filed by the assessee/applicant trust can be summarily rejected only the ground of name mismatch alone. Accordingly CIT (exemptions) is directed to examine this issue afresh after taking on record the detailed submissions filed by the assessee/applicant trust in support of this contention/issue. Objects of the assessee/applicant trust are not for public at large - Looking into the objects of the trust it cannot be held that the assessee/applicant trust has been formed only for the benefit of a particular community only. Further we also agree with the Counsel for the assessee that this aspect should be considered at the time of grant of exemption under Section 11 of the Act and the provisions of Section 13 should not be invoked at time of grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Act. In the result the matter is being restored to the file of CIT (Exemptions) to examine the activities carried out the trust (since we observe that the trust has been recently formed/registered) and to carry out the requisite analysis whether the trust is engaged in carrying out genuine activities so as to be eligible for grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Name Mismatch
2. Objects of the Trust Not for Public at Large

Summary:

Ground No. 1: Name Mismatch

The assessee/applicant trust explained the difference in names between the legal documents and the PAN database. The term "Parul University Bhutpurva Vidhyarthi Mandal" in Gujarati is translated to "Parul University Alumni Association" in English for better understanding and recognition. The trust submitted relevant language translation certificates and official recognition documents. The Tribunal found the explanation reasonable and directed the CIT (Exemptions) to re-examine the issue, concluding that the application should not be summarily rejected on the ground of name mismatch alone. Thus, Ground No. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground No. 2: Objects of the Trust Not for Public at Large

The assessee argued that the trust's objects fall under "Advancement of any other general public utility" u/s 2(15) and benefit a cross-section of the public, not just a specific group. The Tribunal agreed that the trust's objects cannot be considered as benefiting only a particular community and that the provisions of Section 13 should not be invoked at the time of granting registration u/s 12AA. The matter was restored to the CIT (Exemptions) to examine the trust's activities and determine eligibility for registration u/s 12AA. Consequently, Ground No. 2 was allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT (Exemptions) to re-examine both the name mismatch issue and the charitable nature of the trust's objects. The order was pronounced in open court on 24/04/2024.