9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 671 - AT - Income TaxApplication for registration U/s 12AA rejected - entitled to registration under section 80G - Held that - The assessees were asked to submit latest audited accounts. These applicants have submitted audited accounts for the financial year 2014- 15 and 2015-16. These accounts show that these societies have made project expenses. There are programme activity expenses also. These societies have income from projects, interest, agriculture inputs and also contribution by self help groups. Prior to finalization regarding granting registration U/s 12AA and 80G of the Act, these accounts need a close scrutiny to arrive at a just conclusion. Therefore by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we restore the issues regarding granting of registration U/s 12AA and 80G (5) of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration and decide after considering the latest accounts of these societies and case laws relied upon. Accordingly, the issues under consideration is restore to the file of the ld. CIT(E). - Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes only.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of application for registration under Section 12AA. 2. Rejection of application for exemption under Section 80G(5). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Application for Registration under Section 12AA: The assessees filed applications seeking registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E), Jaipur, rejected these applications on the grounds that the trusts were operating as cooperative societies rather than charitable organizations. The CIT(E) observed that the trusts collected monthly contributions from members and provided loans against interest, which limited the benefits to the members rather than the public at large. The CIT(E) concluded that the activities of the trusts were mutual in nature and not charitable, as charity requires benefits to flow to the public at large, which was not the case here. The assessees argued that their activities were charitable, aiming at the relief of the poor and education by supporting poor women through Self Help Groups (SHGs), providing bank credit, training, and services to improve their livelihoods. They contended that the benefits extended beyond the members to the public at large and that the interest charged was necessary for teaching financial discipline and was not for profit-making purposes. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) failed to appreciate the modern concept of empowering women through SHGs and providing micro-finance and vocational training. The Tribunal also considered various case laws supporting the charitable nature of such activities, including the Supreme Court's decision in Peter’s Educational Society and Queen’s Educational Society, and the ITAT Bangalore's decision in Bharatha Swamukti Samsthe. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E) needed to reconsider the applications after closely scrutinizing the latest audited accounts and the case laws relied upon by the assessees. 2. Rejection of Application for Exemption under Section 80G(5): The CIT(E) also rejected the applications for exemption under Section 80G(5) on the grounds that the rejection of registration under Section 12AA automatically disqualified the trusts from exemption under Section 80G. The assessees argued that their activities entitled them to registration under Section 12AA, and consequently, they should also be granted exemption under Section 80G. The Tribunal, having restored the issue of registration under Section 12AA to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, similarly restored the issue of exemption under Section 80G to the CIT(E) for reconsideration. Conclusion: The Tribunal restored the issues regarding granting of registration under Section 12AA and exemption under Section 80G(5) to the CIT(E) for reconsideration. The CIT(E) was directed to decide after considering the latest accounts of the societies and the case laws relied upon by the assessees. All the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes only.
|
