Audit report by another Chartered Accountant and admission of corpus evidence clarified for trust exemption and section 13 relief.

For exemption under section 12A(b), the audit report and prescribed particulars need not be furnished only by the same Chartered Accountant who audited the trust's accounts; a report by another qualified Chartered Accountant is valid unless shown to be false, so the objection on that ground fails. Rule 29 permits admission of additional evidence where it is necessary to decide the appeal or where substantial cause is shown, and evidence that shares formed part of the trust corpus before 1-6-1973 was treated as material to the statutory exception under section 13(1)(d). The additional evidence was admitted and the corpus issue remitted for fresh factual examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purpose of section 12A(b), the audit report and prescribed particulars had to be furnished only by the same Chartered Accountant who audited the trust's accounts; (ii) whether additional evidence showing that the shares formed part of the trust corpus before 1-6-1973 could be admitted, and if so, whether the matter should be remitted for examination of that evidence in relation to section 13(1)(d).

Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of section 12A(b), the audit report and prescribed particulars had to be furnished only by the same Chartered Accountant who audited the trust's accounts.

Analysis: The requirement under section 12A(b) is that where the trust's total income exceeds the prescribed limit, its accounts must be audited by an accountant as defined in the Act and the audit report in the prescribed form must accompany the return. The expression used in the clause does not impose a further restriction that only the auditor who conducted the statutory audit can furnish the certificate for exemption. The phrase identifies the category of accountant competent to give the report, and a certificate is not invalid merely because another qualified Chartered Accountant relies on the earlier audit report, unless the certificate is shown to be false.

Conclusion: The certificate given by the second Chartered Accountant was valid, and the denial of exemption on the ground that the same auditor alone could furnish the report was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether additional evidence showing that the shares formed part of the trust corpus before 1-6-1973 could be admitted, and if so, whether the matter should be remitted for examination of that evidence in relation to section 13(1)(d).

Analysis: Rule 29 of the Tribunal Rules permits additional evidence where it is required to enable the Tribunal to pass orders or where substantial cause is shown. The proposed material went to the root of the dispute because section 13(1)(d) itself contains an exception for assets forming part of the corpus on 1-6-1973. Since the evidence was said to be available from the assessee's records and would determine the applicability of the exception, it was treated as decisive and relevant. The proper course was to admit the evidence and have the factual position verified by the lower authority.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was admitted, the order on this point was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh examination.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the interpretation of section 12A(b), and the alleged violation under section 13(1)(d) was not finally decided but sent back for factual verification of the corpus claim.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under section 12A(b), the audit report need not be furnished by the same Chartered Accountant who conducted the accounts' audit, and additional evidence may be admitted on appeal where it is decisive to a statutory exception and necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.

---