GANGESHWAR SEVA MANDAL CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

Assessee by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Department by Shri S.M. Keshkamat (CIT-DR) Date of Institution of Appeals 27/08/2023 Date of hearing 03/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 03/11/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. 1. These two appeals by the assessee-trust are directed against the separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad (in short, the ld. CIT(E)) both dated 15/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. In the assessee has challenged the order of rejection of application under section 12AB. And in 80G. Both the appeals are interconnected, thus, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order.

2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is a delay of 103 days in filing appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed application for ITA No. 588 & 589/SRT/2023 Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) condonation of delay which is supported with affidavit of Managing Trustee, Kantibhai Patel. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(E) on 15/03/2023 by taking a view that there is mismatch in the name and constitution of assessee-trust as recorded in para 7 of the order. The assessee under bonafide belief that such observation of ld. CIT(E) about mismatch of name is a rectifiable mistake, filed application under Section 154 of the Act for correcting mistake. However, after passing of substantial time, neither the application of assessee under Section 154 filed before the ld. CIT(E) is allowed nor any rejection order is passed. The assessee consulted Senior Tax Consultant. Senior Tax Consultant advised to Managing Trustee of the assessee to file appeal as the order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is appealable order. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee was pursuing alternative remedy before the ld. CIT(E) under bonafide belief. The assessee has no intention to file appeal belatedly, rather was under the hope that by correcting the name of assessee, the assessee may succeed as all requisite information required by ld. CIT(E) was already furnished. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.

3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the application of assessee under Section 12AB of the Act was rejected by the ld. CIT(E) on the ground that there is mismatch in the name of assessee on PAN and in the constitution. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that no such show cause notice was issued for seeking clarification by the ld. CIT(E). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that while registering the Trust, the Charity Commissioner 2 & 589/SRT/2023 Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) deleted the inappropriate, recital and mismatch word. The name of assessee is Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust and the word “Senior Citizen” were crossed, the certified copy of constitution deed is filed, which clearly shows that word “Senior Citizen” were crossed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has furnished object of the trust and the activities undertaken in consonance with the object, therefore, the twin condition for seeking registration under section 12AB is fulfilled, otherwise the ld. CIT(E) while rejecting the said application has not given his satisfaction about the examination of object and the activities of the Trust. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) to examine the object and activities of assessee and to grant registration to the assessee.

4. Against the rejection of application under Section 80G of the Act, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that once the application of assessee under section 12AB was rejected by the ld. CIT(E) on technical reason of mismatch the name, resultantly, application under Section 80G of the Act was also rejected. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed that this appeal may also be restored to the file of ld. CIT(E) to reconsider the application afresh and may pass the order on application under Section 12AB of the Act.

5. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue has not objected the plea of ld. AR of the assessee about the condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and would submits that bench may take its view as per law. & 589/SRT/2023 Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) 6. On the submission against the rejection of application by ld. CIT(E) under Section 12AB and 80G of the Act, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that instead of filing or relying upon the corrected or incorrected copy, the assessee in all fairness should have filed rectification deed before the Charity Commissioner to avoid such ambiguity. Since there was ambiguity in the documents itself vis a vis PAN card and the constitution deed, therefore, the ld. CIT(E) rightly rejected the application under Section 12AB of the Act. Once the application under Section 12AB of the Act is rejected, rejection of application under Section 80G was bound to follow.

7. However, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue in his all fairness would submit that he has no objection if the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) with the direction to assessee to comply and furnish details about the correct name of assessee-trust, its object and the activities if any undertaken, in consonance with objection clauses.

8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. On the condonation of delay, we find that the assessee has shown reasonable and sufficient cause as the assessee was pursuing alternative remedy under bonafide belief that the order of ld. CIT(E) contained the rectifiable mistake with regard to their name in different documents. Further considering the fact that the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue has not seriously objected about the contention of ld. AR of the assessee on condonation of delay in filing appeal, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has shown sufficient reasonable and plausible explanation for condoning the delay of 103 days in 4