2014 (5) TMI 434 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act - Construction of school and hospital Charitable Activity or not Held that - Registration u/s 12A/12AA is a prerequisite for the grant of approval u/s 80-G, which could be withdrawn u/s 12AA (3) - according registration or not withdrawing the same, as the case may be, is itself inconsistent with the non-grant of approval u/s 80-G in-as-much as a satisfaction as to the genuineness or otherwise is also a criteria for according or, as the case may be, withdrawing registration - any authority granting an approval has an inherent power to withdraw it if the condition/s of the approval are no longer met or stand violated at any stage. Section 292C specifically provides for power of such withdrawal - all that the Legislature has done is to bring the law as to the grant of registration under the Act and approval u/s. 80-G at par, so that, once granted, the same would continue to obtain unless the condition/s of its grant are found to be violated or breached Relying upon Sinhagad Technical Education Society vs. CIT 2012 (3) TMI 262 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - only because a power operates with respect to past transactions does not imply that the relevant provision is retrospective - post 01/10/2009, subject to the satisfaction of s. 292C, section 80-G approval could also be withdrawn for a period prior to 01/10/2009 - where the activities leading to the withdrawal, stand undertaken prior the date - the Revenue is not justified in not granting approval u/s 80-G(5) to the assessee the competent authority directed to grant approval u/s 80-G(5) to the assessee with effect from 04/11/2009 Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of approval u/s. 80-G to the assessee by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai.
2. Whether the denial of approval was justified based on the charitable activities carried out by the appellant-trust.
3. Jurisdiction of the Revenue in examining additional aspects beyond the limited issue set by the tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of approval u/s. 80-G
The appeal was filed against the Order rejecting the assessee's application for approval u/s. 80-G of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had previously set aside the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) and directed reconsideration based on the construction of a School and Hospital by the assessee. The denial of approval was primarily due to the lack of charitable activities by the appellant-trust for over a decade preceding the application date. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of charitable work for approval under section 80-G and questioned the genuineness of the trust.

Issue 2: Justification of Denial
The assessee argued that the Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by considering aspects beyond the construction of the School and Hospital as directed by the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that the charitable activity, construction of the school, only extended until 31/03/1997, and thus, other relevant aspects could be examined. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of recent charitable activities does not necessarily indicate a lack of credibility, especially when past charitable work had been undertaken. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of verifying the charitable nature of activities, such as ensuring the hospital was run on charitable lines.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Revenue
The Tribunal clarified that while the Revenue could present additional facts to challenge the credibility of the trust, it must respect the Tribunal's findings unless proven otherwise. The Tribunal emphasized that the grant of approval under section 80-G is an official recognition of an entity as a public charitable body and should be based on objective criteria. The Tribunal also addressed the misconception regarding the perpetuity of approval, highlighting the authority's power to withdraw approval if conditions are violated.

In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to grant approval under section 80-G to the assessee from the specified date, emphasizing the importance of past charitable activities and the credibility of the trust. The appeal was allowed based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved in the case.