Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1198 - AT - Income TaxRefusing to grant registration u/s 12AA (1)(b) r.w.s. 12A - Trust engaged engaged only for TPA members - proof of charitable activities - Held that - The applicant trust cannot be said to be engaged only for TPA members and their employees and working for mutual benefits of its members, but its objects are certainly aimed at providing benefit to the general public in the field of insurance and health facilities. No doubt, activities of the TPA which is a trade association for TPA business for the benefits of its members and non-members, but it is established to protect the interest of TPA members and work towards developing new products related to health insurance or insurance company and to structure the TPA fees, which is like Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Thus providing services to the insurance sector, which in return benefits the public at large. Also the Commissioner (E) was not empowered to examine whether the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 11 or 12 as this issue was required to be examined at the time of assessment. CIT has erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA filed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to grant registration under section 12AA(1)(b) read with section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Examination of the aims and objects of the applicant trust. 3. Applicability of judicial precedents on the nature of charitable activities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Refusal to Grant Registration under Section 12AA(1)(b) read with Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The appellant, Association of Third Party Administrators (ATPA), appealed against the order dated 17.09.2015 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT (E)], Delhi, which refused to grant registration under section 12AA(1)(b) read with section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The initial application for registration was filed on 12.12.2005 and rejected by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) [DIT (E)]. Upon appeal, the Tribunal restored the matter to the DIT (E) with instructions to pass a speaking order. In the second round, the CIT (E) again declined registration, stating that ATPA aimed at industry status for the TPA business and worked for the mutual benefit of its members. 2. Examination of the Aims and Objects of the Applicant Trust: The CIT (E) selectively focused on certain aims and objects of ATPA, such as aiming for industry status for TPA business and organizing, training, and working for the betterment of TPA members and their employees. However, upon examining the aims and objects in their entirety, it was evident that ATPA also aimed at developing new products related to health insurance, structuring TPA fees, representing regulatory bodies and government authorities, promoting healthy living, educating members about health insurance, and interacting with various bodies for promoting health-related schemes for the general public and those below the poverty line. These broader objectives indicated that ATPA's activities were not limited to the benefit of its members but extended to the public at large. 3. Applicability of Judicial Precedents on the Nature of Charitable Activities: The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents to support its decision. The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd. (2015) held that an entity registered as a charitable trust under section 12A, which furthered the interests of brokers, dealers, and the public interested in securities, qualified for exemption under section 11. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in CIT (E) vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (2017) held that the Commissioner was not empowered to examine the entitlement to exemption under sections 11 or 12, as this was within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO). The Delhi High Court in PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry vs. DIT (E) (2014) clarified that rendering specific services to members and non-members for a fee by a trade association did not constitute a business activity and was incidental to the attainment of the association's objectives. The Supreme Court in CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) defined "charitable purpose" as benefiting a section of the public, not necessarily the entire public. Conclusion: In light of the judicial precedents and the comprehensive examination of ATPA's aims and objects, the Tribunal concluded that ATPA's activities were aimed at benefiting the general public in the field of insurance and health facilities. The CIT (E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AA. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the CIT (E) was directed to grant registration under section 12AA to the assessee. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in open court on the 19th day of April, 2018.
|