Charitable trust wins appeal after registration denied over name mismatch in translated documents under Section 12AB

ITAT Surat allowed the assessee's appeal against denial of registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(E) had rejected the application due to name mismatch between PAN/Form-10AB and translated trust deed copy. The tribunal found this mismatch was inadvertent, possibly due to translation issues, as the registration number and PAN were undisputed. The assessee, a charitable trust registered since 2017, was not given opportunity to explain or correct the discrepancy. The matter was remanded to CIT(E) for fresh consideration with directions to pass order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues:
- Rejection of application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act due to mismatch in the name of the assessee in various documents.
- Denial of 12AB Registration to the applicant Religious Trust.
- Discussion on the spelling of the name of the Trust.
- Verification of the genuineness of the Religious Trust's activities.
- Compliance with the requirements for registration under Section 12AB of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the assessee-trust against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The rejection was primarily based on a mismatch in the name of the trust in different documents, such as the PAN database, trust deed, and other official records.

2. The assessee had applied for registration under Section 12AB by submitting necessary details, including the trust deed, registration certificate, PAN details, and financial statements. However, the Commissioner found discrepancies in the name of the trust across various documents, leading to doubts about the genuineness of the trust's activities.

3. During the hearing, the authorized representative of the assessee argued that the trust had provided complete details and that the mismatch in the name was inadvertent. The trust had been in existence since 2013 and was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The representative requested the Tribunal to consider the application and highlighted that the trust had fulfilled all conditions.

4. The authorized representative further requested that if the Tribunal found merit in the appeal, the matter should be sent back to the Commissioner for a fresh review. The representative assured that corrections would be made to align the name of the trust across all documents.

5. On the other hand, the Commissioner's representative pointed out the discrepancies in the name of the trust and emphasized the importance of verifying the object and activities of the trust before granting registration under Section 12AB.

6. After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the Commissioner's order, the Tribunal observed that the rejection was primarily due to the name mismatch. The Tribunal noted that the trust had not been given an opportunity to explain or correct the discrepancy. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh review, allowing the trust to rectify the name mismatch and provide any additional information required.

7. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the registration of the trust under Section 12AB, ensuring that the trust is given an opportunity to correct the name discrepancy and provide necessary details for verification.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, focusing on the rejection of the registration application due to a name mismatch and the subsequent decision by the Tribunal to remand the matter for a fresh review.

---