Thirumurugan Kalvi Arakkattalai. v. CIT (2024) 204 ITD 543 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Education-Only one object-Application by an inadvertent error, it had mentioned all three objects of trust deed-Matter remanded back for fresh adjudication. [S. 10(23C)(vi), 80G, Form No 10AB, 10AC.]

Assessee-trust filed an application in Form no. 10AB seeking approval under section 80G. CIT (E) rejected application on ground that assessee had obtained approval under section 10(23C)(vi) with only one object i.e. ’education’ but while applying for approval under section 80G, assessee had added two more objects which were relief to poor and medical relief without any verification or mention of same in trust deed. On appeal the Tribunal held that  although main objects of assessee as per trust deed were relief to poor, education and medical relief but assessee had amended trust deed and deleted two objects i.e., relief to poor and medical relief and retained only one object of ’education’. As per amended deed, main object was only’ education’ as stated in application filed under section 10(23C)(vi) and in Form no. 10AC issued by Principal Commissioner. By an inadvertent error, assessee had referred to all objects including objects deleted by way of amended deed.   CIT(E) ought to have considered application filed by assessee in light of Form No. 10AC issued by Pr. Commissioner. However, since CIT(E) rejected application of assessee without considering amended deed, matter was to be remanded back to him for fresh adjudication.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*