9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 150 - AT - Income TaxRecognition u/s 80G - already granted registration under section 12 AA - Denial of recognition as trust is generating surplus year after year and majority of receipts are by way of tuition fee and others. The assessee has not made out case for seeking Greg recognition under section 80G - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, assessee has been granted registration under section 12 AA of the Act, and that there is nothing on record brought out by authorities below, or Ld.CIT DR regarding violation of objects of Trust. Grant of approval/recognition under section 80G can act as catalyst to encourage prospective donors to look at intended activities/objects and possibly provide financial support through donations/contributions. In the facts of present case, assessee was holding valid registration u/s 12 AA as on date of impugned order, which conversely means that Ld.CIT (E) was satisfied with objects of assessee in not disputing the registration under section 12 AA. In our view reasons cited by Ld.CIT(E) are not the requirements mandated by provisions of the act, and cannot be the basis for rejection of assessee s application for recognition under section 80G. We also notice that Ld.CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. As relying on M/S. INDIC SCIENCE RESEARCH TRUST VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BENGALURU. 2018 (7) TMI 1902 - ITAT BANGALORE we remand the question of grant of approval under section 80 G (5) (vi) of the Act to Ld.CIT (E) for fresh consideration - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of recognition under section 80G (5) (vi) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. 3. Grounds of appeal against the order of Ld. CIT (exemptions) Bangalore. 4. Consideration of application under section 80 G for grant of recognition. 5. Rejection of application based on surplus generation and nature of receipts. 6. Appeal against rejection and arguments presented by both parties. 7. Examination of registration under section 12AA and its relevance to the case. 8. Citation of relevant decisions and remand for fresh consideration. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of recognition under section 80G (5) (vi) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The appellant challenged the order of Ld. CIT (exemptions) Bangalore on various grounds, including the perceived arbitrariness and lack of conformity with the law in rejecting the application. 2. The rejection was based on the grounds that the trust generated surplus annually, with a significant portion of receipts coming from tuition fees and other sources. The Ld.CIT(E) cited the need for the Commissioner to be satisfied about the trust's objects and activities, referring to relevant legal precedents to support the decision. 3. The appellant contended that there was no violation of section 80G of the act, especially since the trust had previously been granted registration under section 12AA. The argument emphasized the lack of evidence presented by Ld.CIT(E) to justify the rejection of the application for recognition under section 80G. 4. The Ld.CIT.DR supported the original decision to reject the application, leading to a detailed examination by the Tribunal. It was noted that there was no evidence of a breach of the trust's objects, and previous decisions by the Tribunal in similar cases were cited to support the appellant's position. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the rejection did not align with the requirements of the law and mandated provisions. The decision was remanded for fresh consideration by the Ld.CIT(E), with a directive to afford the appellant a proper opportunity to present their case in accordance with the law. 6. The Tribunal's decision allowed the grounds raised by the appellant for statistical purposes, resulting in the appeal being allowed. The order was pronounced in open court on 2nd January 2020, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.
|
