Dr. Om Prakash Mittal and Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Charitable Trust, Kanpur V. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Lucknow

ITA 619/LKW/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9371 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Lucknow
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEELA CHOPRA
• Keywords: Charitable institution

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW [Through Virtual Hearing] BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.619/LKW/2019 Assessment Year: N.A. Dr. Om Prakash Mittal and Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Charitable Trust 117/H-1/346, Model Town Pandu Nagar, Kanpur v. The CIT (E) Lucknow TAN/PAN:AACTD3071E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17 01 2022 Date of pronouncement: 31 01 2022 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT (E), Lucknow dated 30.8.2019 passed under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT(E) has rejected applicant’s application for registration under section 12A(a) of the Act, observing that the copy of the original Trust Deed dated 12.11.2014 is not self-certified and that the certified copy from the Registrar of Trusts has also not been furnished. 3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the applicant-Trust has submitted that these documents were e-filed. 4. Ground No.2 states that the ld. CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application for registration without considering the Page 2 of 4 fact that the application had been filed through the Income Tax e- portal and hence it was digitally signed. 5. Ground No.3 raised before us states that the ld. CIT (E) has erred in rejecting the application for registration without considering the fact that in the course of hearing, the applicant had duly produced the original Trust Deed for verification by the ld. CIT (E). 6. A written Note, dated 17.1.2022 has been filed before us, stating that in any case, if an opportunity is provided to the applicant now, the objections raised by the ld. CIT (E) in the impugned order would be met. The Note, for ready reference, reads as follows: