Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Assessee by Shri Darshit J Naik, CA Department by Shri Ashok B. Koli (CIT-DR) Date of Institution of Appeal 19/05/2023 Date of hearing 10/08/2023 Date of pronouncement 10/08/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee-trust is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption), Ahmedabad [in short the ld. CIT(E)] dated 22/03/2023 in rejecting the application of assessee-trust for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “(1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AA made by the Appellant.
Navsari Mehta Family Zampa Maholla Muktad Trust Vs CIT(E) (2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in not granting adequate opportunity to the appellant to meet his case. (3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in rejecting the Appellant trust’s application primarily on the ground that the name of the trust as per the PAN database and that as per the Charity Commissioner’s certificate are different. (4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in ignoring the submissions made by the Appellant in response to the notices issued and the details furnished by the Appellant in its application for registration. (5) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the appellant submits that Commissioner of Income Tax be directed to grant registration to the appellant u/s 12AB. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend, the above grounds of appeal as and when advised.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act in Form 10AB in accordance with Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, (in short, the Rules) on 28/09/2022 . The assessee furnished necessary details at the time of filing application electronically/online including copy of original registration alongwith memorandum of association/constitution deed/trust deed of assessee. The assessee also furnished copy of certificate of registration and PAN. On perusal of details of assessee in different documents, the ld CIT(E) found that as per PAN/ Form-10AB the name of assessee “NVS MEHTA FAMILY MUKTAD FUND”. However, in PTR (Public Trust Register) registration certificate and Audit report for financial year ending on 31.03.2019, 31.03.2020 & 31.03.2021 the name is “SRI NAVSARI MEHTA FAMILY ZAPA MOHOLLA MUKTAD FUND”. Thus, there is a mismatch in the name of PAN/Form 10AB database Navsari Mehta Family Zampa Maholla Muktad Trust Vs CIT(E) vis-à-vis certificate of registration. The ld. CIT(E) was of the view that the assessee has not furnished required details. In absence of requisite details, the verification of object of trust could not be verified. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the application of assessee for want of compliance by holding that Section 12AB of the Act makes it clear that before granting registration, he has to satisfy himself about genuineness of the activities of the trust and to verify that activities are in consonance with object of the trust or institution. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(E), the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee furnished complete details while filing/uploading required details at the time of filing of application. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that they have furnished copy of trust deed, registration of trust deed with Charity Commissioner, Surat bearing registration No. C-69 Navsari. Same registration number is mentioned in all evidences of assessee trust about its activities. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is a charitable and religious trust. The trust is in existence from 1953. There is no change in the object and activities of the assessee-trust. The assessee was Navsari Mehta Family Zampa Maholla Muktad Trust Vs CIT(E) granted provisional registration certificate under section 21A(1)(ac)(iii) on 304.04.2022 up to AY 2024-25. The name of assessee- trust on PAN is mentioned in short form. The assessee has already filed an application for correction in data base of PAN, vide application dated 07.08.2023, copy of acknowledgment if filed at page No. 61 of paper book. The name of trust was wrongly mentioned due, different nomenclature due to inadvertence mistake which may be read as “SHRI NAVSARI MEHTA FAMILY ZAPA MOHOLLA MUKTAD FUND”. There is no change in the name of assessee trust rather due to mismatch of name due to inadvertence, the ld. CIT(E) rejected the application instead of considering it in a broad way. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has filed copy of PAN card of assessee, registration certificate with Assistant Charity Commissioner, Surat having registration No. C-69 Navsari. The assessee is filing its return of income by with PAN: AAATN 9883 C. The audited financial statement also mentioned the registration number and the name of assessee trust and PAN. The trust deed also clearly mentioned the name of assessee trust. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the application of assessee was rejected in a mechanical way without seeking any clarification for explanation from the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions and appeal of assessee may be allowed.
Navsari Mehta Family Zampa Maholla Muktad Trust Vs CIT(E) 4. In alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) with direction to consider the application of assessee afresh and to pass he order in accordance with law. The ld AR for assessee submits that he is ready to make correction in the Form-10AB or at other places to the satisfaction of ld CIT(E) and the assessee has already filed an application for correction in PAN.
On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that there was a mismatch in various documents. The assessee has given different name in Form-10AB, which is not matching with the name mentioned in registration certificate as well as in trust deed. The ls CIT(A) while rejecting application due to mismatch of name in different evidences. The object and activities of the assessee was not verified by the ld. CIT(E). The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that in case, if the Bench of view that the assessee deserve any relief, the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) to examine the object of assessee and genuinenity of the activities if any undertaken by the assessee trust and to examine any other requirement, if the assessee fulfills such condition.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of ld. CIT(E) carefully. We find that the ld. CIT(E) in Navsari Mehta Family Zampa Maholla Muktad Trust Vs CIT(E) para 7 of his order, has accepted that the assessee has filed/attached/uploaded trust deed and details regarding the registration with Charity Commissioner with translated copy. The ld. CIT(E) was of the view that there is a mismatch in the name of assessee in PAN/Form-10AB and in copy of registration deed. 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 1953 and registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Charitable Trust vide registration No. C-69 Navsari. Considering the fact that the basic ground of rejection of application under section 12AB was mismatch in the name of assessee vis-à-vis name shown in PAN, Application under Form-10AB, 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 an opportunity to correct the same, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(E) 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 Navsari Mehta Family Zampa Maholla Muktad Trust Vs CIT(E) correcting 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, grounds of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10/08/2023 in open court at the time of hearing.