2023 (7) TMI 797 - AT - Income Tax

Rejecting application u/s 12A - mismatch in the name of PAN database vis- -vis certificate of registration - CIT(E) was of the view that the assessee has not furnished required details, thus verification of object of trust could not be verified - 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 1954 and registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Charitable Trust . 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 may due to inadvertence, otherwise the registration number with Charity Commissioner and PAN is not in dispute. 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 - Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal is against the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). The grounds of appeal include the justification for rejection, extraneous considerations, the need for a liberal view, and the request for altering or varying the grounds.

Summary of Judgment:

Ground 1: Rejection of application under Section 12A
The assessee-trust applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Act, providing necessary details and documents. However, a mismatch in the name of the trust was noted between different documents, leading to the rejection of the application by the Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that the mismatch may have been inadvertent, as the registration number and PAN were consistent. The Tribunal directed the matter to be reconsidered, allowing the assessee to correct the name and provide further evidence of the trust's activities.

Ground 2: Extraneous considerations
The appeal contended that the rejection of the application was driven by extraneous considerations rather than a fair assessment of the trust's compliance. The Tribunal acknowledged the mismatch in the name but emphasized the need to consider the overall genuineness of the trust's activities before rejecting the application.

Ground 3: Judicial and liberal view
The assessee argued that a more liberal and judicial view should have been taken by the Commissioner instead of a hyper-technical approach. The Tribunal agreed that the rejection based solely on the name mismatch was not justified, and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the error.

Ground 4: Leave to add, alter, or vary grounds
The appeal requested the flexibility to add, alter, or vary any of the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the registration application with the opportunity for the assessee to correct the name discrepancy and provide additional information as needed.