9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refusal of the Commissioner to grant recognition and issue a certificate u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961, was justified. 2. Whether the objects of the petitioner company qualify as charitable purposes u/s 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Commissioner properly considered the materials and previous orders related to the petitioner's activities. Summary: Issue 1: Refusal of Recognition and Certificate u/s 80G The petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner dated March 15, 1975, which refused recognition and issuance of a certificate u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, had previously been granted exemption of its income u/s 88 (later s. 80G) for the year ending March 31, 1970, and renewed up to December 31, 1973. However, a new Commissioner refused renewal by an order dated May 25, 1974, which was not a speaking order and was set aside by the court with a direction to decide afresh. The Commissioner issued a notice on November 4, 1974, and after considering the petitioner's exhaustive reply, refused to grant the certificate again on March 15, 1975. Issue 2: Charitable Purposes u/s 2(15) The petitioner contended that its main object was education, a charitable purpose u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Clause 3 of the memorandum of association outlined the main objects, including the promotion of search for truth, diffusion of useful knowledge, and publication of journals and books. The Commissioner opined that certain objects were outside the purview of 'charitable purpose' as defined in s. 2(15), such as publishing reports, undertaking farming, running hostels, and acquiring property. The Commissioner ignored the actual activities carried on by the company, which were relevant to determining whether they were in implementation of the company's objects. Issue 3: Consideration of Materials and Previous Orders The Commissioner did not consider the previous orders granting exemption and the licence granted u/s 25 of the Companies Act, which indicated the charitable nature of the company's objects. The Commissioner's approach was deemed defective as he ignored the materials reflecting the company's activities and the previous orders. The Commissioner's rejection of the petitioner's contention that the objects in cl. 3A(i) amounted to education was based on an erroneous interpretation of the decision in CIT v. Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust [1970] 77 ITR 61. The court found that the objects mentioned in cl. 3A(i) directly related to education and that other clauses were incidental or ancillary to the main object. Conclusion: The court quashed the Commissioner's order, directing that the petitioner's application be disposed of afresh in accordance with law and the observations made. The Commissioner's conclusions were found to be vitiated due to the improper approach and failure to consider relevant materials and previous orders.
|
