2021 (12) TMI 204 - HC - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - certificate of registration u/s 12A not traceable - petitioner since has been denied having exemption u/s. 11 on account of non-production of the physical copy of the registration certificate from the petitioner - application under Right to Information Act seeking certified duplicate copy of certificate of registration u/s. 12A(a) - non-response to the application made to RTI - HELD THAT - We notice from the reply which has been given by the Information Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Central Public Information Officer, Ahmedabad, in response to the said information under the RTI Act dated 27.07.2020 that it has been replied that there is no evidence found showing transfer of records of the applicant from the respective CIT to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Central Public Information Officer, Ahmedabad. Petitioner also addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Income Tax on 28.09.2020 requesting for issuance of fresh registration certificate effective from 11.02.1975 under the circumstances narrated in the said letter. In the said letter, the petitioner also reproduced the relevant extract from the order under section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The record of certificate of registration under section 12A of the Act and the same is permanent record, the respondent department should have maintained and in absence thereof, it cannot be concluded that the trust is not registered. Instead of moving such an application to the Central Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) appellate authority under the RTI Act, the petitioner has moved the application with a request for issuance of fresh certificate from the authority Commissioner of Income Tax, Vejalpur Ahmedabad, without questioning the order in his capacity as an appellate authority, we are, therefore, of the view that the record which is to be maintained of the unit by the concerned authority is required to respond positively and the same when is not only the requirement but an obligation to maintain it. The application made by the petitioner be treated as an application under the RTI Act and be considered within the time period specified under the very statute. Let the appellate authority under the RTI Act respond to the petitioner without fail. Any grievance if still persisting, the petitioner shall have legal recourse open.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking copy of registration certificate u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act from respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, applied for registration u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act in 1973. Despite mentioning the registration number in tax returns and enjoying exemption u/s. 11, the petitioner faced denial of exemption for certain years due to non-production of the physical copy of the registration certificate. Appeals were filed, and an RTI application seeking a duplicate copy of the certificate was made. The response stated the certificate was not traceable, leading to subsequent requests for a duplicate copy. The petitioner also reapplied for registration u/s. 12AA, which was initially rejected but later granted. The petition sought a writ to direct the respondent to provide the registration certificate and grant registration since 1975 or at least from FY 2012-13.

The advocate for the petitioner emphasized the need for record maintenance, citing precedents where courts directed issuance of fresh certificates in similar situations. In one case, a trust's records were destroyed in a flood, leading the court to grant exemption benefits despite the loss of documents. Another case involved a trust deed issue, where the tribunal allowed the appeal based on the trust's nature and the details available in the registration certificate from the Wakf Board. The court upheld the tribunal's decision, emphasizing the trust's registration details and functions were adequately evidenced.

The court noted the petitioner's efforts to obtain the registration certificate through RTI requests and letters to tax authorities. It highlighted the importance of maintaining permanent records and criticized the respondent for failing to provide evidence of record transfer. The court advised the petitioner to seek recourse through the RTI appellate authority and emphasized the obligation to maintain records. The court refrained from entertaining the petition directly, urging the petitioner to follow proper channels and allowing legal recourse if necessary.

The court differentiated the current case from past judgments where exceptional circumstances warranted direct court intervention. It noted the petitioner's failure to exhaust RTI appellate remedies before approaching the court, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The court disposed of the petition while preserving the petitioner's rights for future legal actions.