9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Regarding the second donation of receipt of donation, Bhalchandra Educational Trust, the finding of CIT is not correct because the amount of ₹ 40 lacs was given by Bhalchandra Educational Trust to both the assesses trusts as a loan and not as donation and moreover, the third trust has already been granted registration on 08/12/2009 u/s 12AA and no adverse inference can be drawn on this account - trustees and objects of the trust is identical with these two trusts – under identical facts, registration is already granted by learned CIT himself to Bhalchandra Educational Trust, there is no reason to deny registration to these two trusts - assessee has invested an amount on acquiring the land and on account of building – the two trusts have already undertaken activities to fulfill their charitable objects in a big way – thus, CIT was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessees for registration u/s 12AA and 80G(5) of the Act – Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.474 & 475/LKW/2013, ITA Nos.585 & 586/LKW/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2014 - Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav And Shri A. K. Garodia,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Shyam La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received almost daily from different persons and precise addresses are not mentioned. In this regard, he submitted that the addresses are available in the paper book for each of the donor. He also submitted that the second objection of learned CIT is that if the claim of the assessee is to be believed, it will suggest that these alleged donors were prepared with ready cash to be donated on a given date at different places. He submitted that it can be seen that the donation of each person is below ₹ 5,000/- and therefore, this is not unnatural. It was his submission that the reasoning given by CIT is not proper for rejecting the claim of the assessee regarding registration u/s 12AA and 80G of the Act. It was his contention that for the purpose of granting registration u/s 12AA, the CIT is required to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the trust. He submitted that in the present case, the CIT is not doubting the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust and therefore, his order should be set aside and registration should be granted to the assessee. Reliance was placed by him on a judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectively, incidentally the address of this alleged donors trust happens to be the same as that of the applicant trust. It will not be out of place to mention that on 28.09.2012 i.e. the date of creation of the applicant trust, two more trusts namely Vinayak Educational Trust and Vindhanraj Educational Trust have been created by the same author/founder namely Smt. Mona Chawla and separate applications by these two trusts were also filed seeking registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The applicant trust and the above mentioned other two trusts are seen to have identical objects. The learned authorized representative did not explain as to why three trusts (inclusive of the applicant trust) with identical objects were created by one and the same author/founder on the same date i.e. 28.09.2012. 3. The receipts acknowledging the alleged donations which were produced on 15.05.2013 and were examined, reveal that all donations ranging between ₹ 3500/-and ₹ 4600/- were received in cash from large number of persons and the total of such donations amounted to ₹ 44,72,800/-. On going through the list of these alleged donors, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have donated two amounts of ₹ 10,00.000/- and ₹ 30,00,000/- on 04.02.2013 and 22.03.2013 to the other trust namely Vinayak Educational Trust (Supra) created vide trust deed on 28.09.2012. The dates and amounts of donation are thus identical to the dates and amounts of alleged donation to the applicant trust. 4. The applicant trust is seen to have purchased a landbearing Khasra No 960, Village Sikrori, Pargana Lucknow for a consideration of ₹ 88 Lacs from Smt. Sudesh Kumari, who, as stated by the AR, is the mother of Shri Subodh Chawla, who in turn happens to be the managing trustee/life time chairman of the applicant trust. A perusal of the sale deed, as furnished, shows the stamp duty valuation of the property at ₹ 53,67,600. which has been purchased for ₹ 88 Lacs by the applicant trust Thus an excessive consideration much more than the fair market value, has been passed on to the mother of one of the trustees. It is startling to note that the cheques issued for the payment of sale consideration to Smt. Sudesh Kumari have still not been encashed by her though as per the sale deed these cheques were issued as early as in November 2012 The applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) cited by learned DR also, this was an objection of CIT that as per the counterfoil of the donation, received by the assessee, there was no specific direction that this donation is towards corpus and the counterfoil of the donation did not bear the complete address and PAN. It was noted that the list of 87 donors showed only names without any address. It was held that the lack of information in respect of percentage, age, address or PAN numbers in the list of donors are the good reasons for declining the registration to the assessee as a charitable trust but in the present case, we find that the list of donors contains these details i.e. name address and amount of donation. In our considered opinion for such small amount of donation below ₹ 5,000/- each, non getting of PAN is not important. Hence, in the facts of the present case, this judgment is not applicable. 5.2 The other two judgments cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee are helping the case of the assessee because in these cases, it was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court that only genuineness of the object was to be decided at the time of registration. Regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
