Ramji Mandir Anndatar Tekri, Gandhinagar V. The CIT, Exemption, Ahmedabad

ITA 380/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Ramji Mandir Anndatar Tekri, a trust, appealing against the decision of the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, which rejected their application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The rejection was primarily due to a perceived mismatch in the name of the trust as per PAN and other documents. The tribunal found that the trust was not given a proper opportunity to address the mismatch during the initial proceedings, leading to the decision to remand the case for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125022 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. P. YADAV
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T .A . No .3 80 /A h d / 20 23 ( A s s e s s me nt Y ea r : N. A .) R a mj i Ma n di r A n nd ata r Te kr i , Tek ri B a z a r , S ad r a , D i sc . Ga nd hin a g a r ,-3 8 23 20 V s . C I T(E e x e mp t io n) , A h me da ba d [ P AN N o. A A ET R1 19 9 M ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mehul Thakker, C.A. Respondent by : Shri A. P. Yadav, CIT D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 16.08.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 13.09.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee is filed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Ahmedabad on 29.03.2023 for Assessment Year N.A. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. The Ld. CIT-Exemption, Ahmedabad has erred in law in rejecting the application for registration of the trust u/s 12AB of the IT Act, despite the fact that all the details called for about the activities of the trust had been duly furnished for his verification. 2. Before rejecting the application, the Ld. CIT-Exemption, Ahmedabad ought to have given opportunity of being heard to the trust to submit the reasons / explanation for the mismatch in name. 3. The Ld. CIT-Exemption, therefore, erred in law in not granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard before making rejection of the application.” ITA No. 380/Ahd/2023 Ramji Mandir Anndatar Tekri vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year–NA - 2 - 3. Application for registration of trust under Section 12Ab of the Act was filed on 30.09.2022 by the assessee as per From No. 10AB under Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Notice was issued to the assessee trust on 06.12.2022 and send through ITBA on the email ID given by the applicant trust in its online application with a request to furnish detail note on the activities actually carried out by the trust as well as certain details / documents as mentioned therein. In response to the said notice the assessee trust would furnish part detail / document in reply. Another notice was issued on 28.12.2022 sent through ITBA to furnish pending details for which the applicant trust furnished details / documents in its reply. The CIT-E rejected the application for registration on the ground that he could not satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activity due to the fact that what is a mismatch in the name of trust as per PAN vis-à-vis Certificate of Registration and other documents. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the CIT-E, Ahmedabad the assessee filed present appeal. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was not given opportunity in respect of giving reply related to the PAN vis-à-vis Certificate of Registration and its mismatch with other documents. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the object of the Trust was never disputed by the CIT-E at any point of time and therefore, the rejection is not justifiable. 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the applicant trust has not mentioned the object as per Para 6 and 7 as well as 8 and therefore, the CIT-E has rightly rejected the application for registration. ITA No. 380/Ahd/2023 Ramji Mandir Anndatar Tekri vs. CIT(E) Asst.Year–NA - 3 - 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that at no point of time the assessee was confronted about the mismatch in the name of the trust as per PAN vis-à-vis Certificate of Registration and other documents while sending the notices related to the activities of the applicant trust and other details for registration of the applicant trust. Thus, the proper opportunity was not given to the applicant trust and therefore, in the interest of justice it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT-E for proper adjudication after taking cognizance of the explanation of the details given by the applicant trust. Needless to say the applicant trust be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. 8. In result, the appeal of the appellant / applicant trust is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 13/09/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 13/09/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad