9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Renewal of recognition under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act challenged as arbitrary, contrary to law, and unreasonable. Analysis: The petitioner, a public charitable trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1956, contested the impugned order of the respondent-authority dated October 13, 1998, regarding the renewal of recognition under section 80G of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner-trust's activities focus on the preservation, protection, and promotion of infirm, invalid, and rejected cattle. The trust has a history dating back to 1796 and operates for laudable objectives related to cattle welfare and animal husbandry. The petitioner had previously obtained renewals of recognition under section 80G of the Income-tax Act for several periods, indicating compliance with the legal requirements. However, the renewal for a further five-year period was declined by the respondent, citing concerns about the trust's dairy business operations and accounting practices. The petitioner responded to the show-cause notice by explaining that the milk-producing cattle constituted a small percentage of the total cattle under its care. Despite selling milk to cover expenses, the trust reported significant annual deficits, emphasizing the absence of an organized dairy business as alleged by the respondent. The petitioner also raised objections regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice during the proceedings. During the final hearing, the petitioner expressed readiness to maintain and submit accounts for milk sales from April 1, 1998, to address the controversy surrounding the dairy business allegations. After a thorough examination of the petitioner-trust's historical activities since 1796 and considering the submissions made, the court directed the respondent-authority to re-examine the request for recognition under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act sympathetically. Emphasizing the trust's longstanding commitment to the welfare of infirm and rejected cattle, the court highlighted the importance of implementing the trust's objectives in the societal interest. The matter was remanded to the respondent for a fresh review, stressing the need for a compassionate decision considering the trust's noble endeavors and statutory obligations under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition without costs due to the Department's sympathetic approach. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to reconsider and adjudicate the matter promptly, preferably within four weeks, to facilitate donor incentives before the end of the financial year.
|
