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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 588 & 589/SRT/2023 (AY: 2022-23) (Hearing in Physical Court) Gangeshwar Seva Mandal The Commissioner of Income Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemptions), Vs. A-14, Rushikesh Apartment, Ahmedabad. Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat. PAN: AACTG 4314 K APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT

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. 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 ITA No. 588/Srt/2023, the assessee has challenged the order of rejection of application under section 12AB. And in ITA No. 589/Srt/2023 the assessee has assailed rejection of application under section 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

ITA No. 588 & 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.

ITA No. 588 & 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

ITA No. 588 & 589/SRT/2023 Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) filing appeal, therefore, the delay in filing appeal is both the appeals assessment order condoned. Now adverting to the merits of the appeals. 9. On the issue of rejection of application under Section 12AB of the Act, we find that the ld. CIT(E) dismissed the application of assessee under Section 12AB of the Act by taking a view that there is mismatch of assessee’s name, as per PAN, it is “Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust” whereas in the copy of constitution deed, the name of assessee is mentioned “Gangeshwar Senior Citizen Seva Mandal Charitable Trust”. The assessee now assert that actual name of the assessee is “Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust”. As there was a mismatch in the data base, therefore no verification of object of trust and its activities were examined. We also find that the name of assessee on PAN is mentioned as “Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust”, which is actual name of the assessee. Thus, in our view, the assessee deserve one more opportunity to reconsider the registration of assessee under Section 12AB of the Act afresh and pass order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before deciding the application afresh, the ld. CIT(E) shall grant opportunity of correcting/ explaining the mismatch in the name and also to allow to make further submission to prove the object of assessee-trust and its activities. The assessee is also directed to file/furnish any other necessary information if so desired. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 589/Srt/2023 for A.Y. 2022-23. 10. Considering the fact that we have restored the application under Section 12AB to the file of ld. CIT(E) to pass the order afresh, therefore, this appeal is also 5

ITA No. 588 & 589/SRT/2023 Gangeshwar Seva Mandal Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) to decide it afresh after passing the order on application under Section 12AB of the Act which is the subject matter in ITA No. 589/Srt/2023. In the result, this appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the final result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced on 03/11/2023 in open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 03/11/2023 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee – 2. Revenue - 3. CIT(E) 4. DR By Order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT Surat