9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 760 - AT - Income TaxDenial of registration u/s 12AA - original trust deed was modified - Held that - CIT has held that those supplementary trust deed submitted by assessee are not in accordance with the provisions of Indian Trust Act 1882 and judicial decision but has not pointed out any provision of the Indian Trust Act 1882 or any judicial decision which shows as to how the supplementary trust deeds dated 5.9.2008 and 22.9.2008 are not in accordance with law. As both the supplementary trust deeds are duly registered by the Sub-registrar, Faridabad and there is no reason to doubt the explanation of the appellant that modifications were made in the original trust deed to make the objects of the trust more clear. It is not the case of the revenue that in the supplementary trust deed some non-charitable objects have been introduced. In absence of such observation by the revenue no reason to doubt the validity of the supplementary trust deed executed on 22nd Sep. 2008 which is the finally amended trust deed. The Ld. CIT has not specified as to how the supplementary trust deed dated 22.9.2008 is not in accordance with law. The finding of Ld. CIT in this regard is thus not justified - no substance in the contention of the DR that while making alteration in the trust deed the appellant has violated the provisions laid down in clause 17 of the original deed which provides the manner of making, altering or rescinding Rules and Regulations - direction to grant registration u/s 12A - in favour of assessee. Refusal in granting approval u/s 80 G - Held that - As grant of registration u/s 12A has been allowed application for exemption u/s 80 G too need to be allowed - in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in not granting registration under section 12AA. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in holding that the Trust is indulging in business under the guise of a charitable trust. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in rejecting the supplementary trust deeds. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in refusing approval under section 80G of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in not granting registration under section 12AA: The appellant trust filed an application for registration under section 12A(1)(a) of the Act on 28.04.2008. The Ld. CIT rejected the application, citing that the trust's objects were not charitable and the original trust deed could not be supplemented. The Tribunal noted that the appellant is an educational trust, and the original trust deed was amended twice to address the Ld. CIT's objections. The Tribunal referred to the decisions in Laxmi Narain Lath Trust vs. CIT and Reliable Educational Alliance Society vs. CIT, emphasizing that at the stage of registration, the Ld. CIT is only required to verify the charitable nature of the trust's objects and the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT's refusal to grant registration was unjustified. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in holding that the Trust is indulging in business under the guise of a charitable trust: The Ld. CIT argued that the trust's objects had the potential for business activities and were not charitable. The Tribunal examined the trust deed and found that all the objects were related to imparting education and were incidental to it. The Tribunal cited cases such as Director of IT vs. Garden City Educational Trust and CIT vs. Red Rose School, which held that imparting education is a charitable purpose. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT's finding that the trust's objects were not charitable was incorrect. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard: The appellant contended that the Ld. CIT passed the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail but implied that the procedural fairness was not adequately observed by the Ld. CIT. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in rejecting the supplementary trust deeds: The Ld. CIT rejected the supplementary trust deeds, stating they were not in accordance with the Indian Trust Act 1882 and judicial decisions. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT did not specify which provisions of the Indian Trust Act or judicial decisions were violated. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Laxmi Narain Lath Trust vs. CIT, which allowed modification of the trust deed to clarify charitable intentions. The Tribunal held that the supplementary trust deeds were valid and the Ld. CIT's rejection was unjustified. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT erred in refusing approval under section 80G of the Act: The Ld. CIT refused approval under section 80G based on his findings regarding the registration under section 12A. Since the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT to grant registration under section 12A, it also directed the Ld. CIT to grant approval under section 80G, as the grounds for refusal were no longer valid. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT's order and directed the Ld. CIT to grant registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G to the appellant. The appeals were allowed, and the orders were pronounced in open court on 27/07/2012.
|
