9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 633 - AT - Income TaxApplication filed by the assessee u/s 12AA rejected - Held that - In the instant case, in case of dissolution of University, property would go to sponsoring body that itself is registered under section 12AA of the Act, subjected to the relevant provisions of the Act. Undisputedly, the education is included into the definition of charitable purpose as per Section 2(15) of the Act. It is settled position of law that at the time of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the DIT(E) has to satisfy with regard to the genuineness of activities of the Trust. In our considered view, the DIT(E) ought to have given specific finding with regard to genuineness of the activities of the University. The DIT(E) has rejected the application on the ground that in case of dissolution there is no safeguard to the properties created by the University. There is no finding that the University is not imparting education, or otherwise imparting of such education on the basis of commercial consideration. It is pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that as per the Gujarat Government Gazette Notification under the provisions of the Gujarat Private Universities Act, 2009, the University cannot run commercially. The ld. DR could not controvert the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that under the identical facts other Universities have been granted registration u/s 12AA by the Revenue. Under these facts, we are of the view that the ld. DIT(E) was not justified in declining the registration to the assessee u/s.12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Error in passing order despite pending Miscellaneous Application. 2. Rejection of application for registration under Section 12A due to lack of Trust Deed or Memorandum. 3. Non-compliance with Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board. 4. Absence of clause regarding dissolution and asset transfer in the first statute. 5. Misinterpretation of asset transfer to sponsoring body on dissolution. 6. Misunderstanding of the definition of sponsoring body under the Gujarat Universities Act. 7. Incorrect assessment of the University as a profit-making entity. 8. Misjudgment of University's independence from the sponsoring body. 9. Misjudgment of the University's charitable nature. Detailed Analysis: 1. Error in Passing Order Despite Pending Miscellaneous Application: The appellant contended that the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in passing the order giving effect to the ITAT order while the Miscellaneous Application against the said order was still pending. This procedural error was highlighted as a significant ground for appeal. 2. Rejection of Application for Registration under Section 12A: The DIT (Exemption) rejected the application for registration under Section 12A, citing the absence of a Trust Deed or Memorandum of Association. The appellant argued that the University was constituted under the Gujarat Private Universities Act and should be governed by its provisions, negating the need for a separate Trust Deed or Memorandum. 3. Non-compliance with Supreme Court Decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board: The appellant referenced the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board, where exemption under Section 12A was granted despite the absence of a separate Trust Deed. The appellant argued that their case was similar and should be treated accordingly. 4. Absence of Clause Regarding Dissolution and Asset Transfer: The DIT (Exemption) noted the lack of a clause in the first statute regarding the non-dissolution of the University and the transfer of assets to another trust upon dissolution. The appellant countered that Section 41 of Chapter IX of the Gujarat Private Universities Act adequately covered the provisions for winding up the University. 5. Misinterpretation of Asset Transfer to Sponsoring Body on Dissolution: The DIT (Exemption) held that asset transfer to the sponsoring body upon dissolution was impermissible for a charitable institution. The appellant argued that the sponsoring body was a Public Charitable Trust registered under Section 12A, making the transfer compliant with charitable institution norms. 6. Misunderstanding of the Definition of Sponsoring Body: The appellant highlighted that the definition of the sponsoring body under Section 2(t) of the Gujarat Universities Act required it to be a registered society, public trust, or company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. This definition was not adequately considered by the DIT (Exemption). 7. Incorrect Assessment of the University as a Profit-Making Entity: The DIT (Exemption) concluded that the University was for profit-making, contrary to the appellant's assertion that admissions were based on merit and means, with fee structures adhering to state government provisions. The appellant argued that these conditions demonstrated the University's charitable nature. 8. Misjudgment of University's Independence from Sponsoring Body: The DIT (Exemption) viewed the University as not an independent body but controlled by the sponsoring body. The appellant argued that the sponsoring body was also a charitable institution registered under Section 12A, ensuring no governance by private individuals. 9. Misjudgment of the University's Charitable Nature: The DIT (Exemption) held that the University's activities and objects were not genuinely charitable. The appellant countered that the University was established under the Gujarat Private Universities Act and functioned as per its provisions, which included charitable objectives. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the DIT (Exemption) was overly concerned with the fate of the University's assets upon dissolution and did not provide a specific finding on the genuineness of the University's activities. The Tribunal referenced the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT vs. O.P. Jindal Global University, which supported the appellant's case. The Tribunal concluded that the DIT (Exemption) was not justified in denying registration under Section 12AA and directed the DIT (Exemption) to grant the registration. The appellant's appeal was allowed.
|
