9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 583 - HC - Income TaxRegistration u/s 12A - Charitable purpose - CIT rejected to grant registration - Tribunal granted registration - Held that - Registration was refused only on the basis of a report submitted by the Accountant General, where it was mentioned that the accounts were not properly maintained, But this defect is curable - For not utilization of the fund and keeping in the Bank, never attracts the cancellation of the registration of the society, however, it may amounts non functioning of the Society - It cannot be said that a purpose would cease to be charitable even if pubic welfare is intended to be served. If the primary purpose and the predominant object are to promote the welfare of the general public the purpose would be a charitable purpose - Following decision of CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board 2007 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Ajai Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib 1980 (11) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the rejection of registration under Section 12A for a charitable institution. Analysis: The case involves an appeal by the Department against the rejection of registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act for a State Urban Development Agency (SUDA). The SUDA applied for registration as a charitable institution, but the CIT refused registration citing lack of proof of genuineness in accounts and misutilization of funds. The Department argued that the accounts were not fully utilized for the stated objectives, leading to improper fund utilization. They emphasized that registration under Section 12A is not a right and highlighted objections raised by the Auditor General of India regarding fund utilization. On the other hand, the assessee justified the Tribunal's order, asserting that the society's objectives focused on public utility, specifically the upliftment of urban poor. They argued that the CIT wrongly rejected the application without considering the society's main objective of public utility. The assessee's counsel referred to various legal precedents supporting their stance on public utility and charitable purposes. The High Court analyzed the case, noting that the SUDA had been engaged in public utility services since its establishment in 1990. The Court observed that the registration refusal was based on a report highlighting accounting discrepancies, which were deemed curable. The Court applied the doctrine of instrumentality and emphasized that no individual interests were involved. It clarified that non-utilization of funds, while not ideal, did not warrant registration cancellation. The Court also interpreted the wide connotation of "public utility" under Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that objectives promoting general public welfare are considered charitable. Furthermore, the Court discussed the evolution of the definition of "charitable purposes" under Section 2(15) and highlighted that even if some profit is involved, as long as the primary objective serves public utility, the institution can be deemed charitable. The Court also addressed the expansive definition of "property" under Section 11, including business undertakings. Additionally, the Court referenced Section 12AA(3) regarding registration cancellation, emphasizing the importance of genuine activities aligned with the trust's objectives. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant registration to the SUDA, citing the society's objectives as falling under general public utility. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, dismissing the Department's appeal at the admission stage.
|
