9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as far as ld. DIT(E)’s finding regarding applicability of proviso to section 2(15) is concerned, we are not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that assessee had received service charges from various organizations for conducting the programme and this cannot par take the character of business by any stretch of reasoning. Be that as it may, this cannot be basis for denying registration as it is nowhere so contemplated in the Act. Aassessee has filed copy of ledger account of service charges received. These service charges were mainly from big companies and, therefore, when these companies have contributed towards the programme carried out by assessee, it cannot be said that activities of assessee-society were not genuine. These companies must have sponsored only after considering their social responsibilities towards public at large. Further, we find that in paper book, assessee has also annexed various reports on its activities, which have not adversely been commented by ld. DIT(E). Photographs annexed in paper book show that various programmes were being conducted and people were listening to various speakers. Therefore, the assessee-society was carrying out the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, examined the accounts submitted by the assessee from which she noticed that assessee had received in AY 2013-14 service charges aggregating to ₹ 27,09,275/- and misc. receipts at ₹ 8,57,713/-. In support of these receipts the assessee filed bank statement for the entire one year showing deposits mostly exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in the account. The assessee s AR was required to state the nature of deposits or credits in the bank account. The assessee s AR filed letter dated 15.10.2013, signed by the President of the Society, stating therein that we hereby certify that amount above ₹ 20,000/- receipts/ credits into our bank account are against Road Safety Education-Training Services rendered by us . Ld. DIT(E) also noticed that assessee, inter alia, submitted that it was providing knowledge of safe driving on the roads to the professional drivers through various modes. Ld. DIT(E) after going through these details concluded that assessee was involved in rendering its professional/ technical services to the people/ desirous persons in lieu of money. She required the assessee to elaborate on the training programme conducted by it or the training courses being r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of training and the target group drivers, commuters, management staff etc. to whom it is imparted. In its reply dated 28/11/2013 applicant has filed only names of organizations for AY. 2011-12 and 2012-13 wherein, it claims to have trained the staff of these organizations. All organizations are either Pvt. Ltd companies or Ltd companies and no general public or people are the beneficiaries of its activities. In the absence of nature of training to the people/person and party-wise details of service rendered or money charged from the commercial organizations for imparting training to their employees, the applicant has failed to justify its claim of charitable organization. Therefore, assessee's claim of registration u/s 12A fails on this account alone . 2.4. Relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee Lok Shikshana Trust Vs. CIT (1975) 10 ITR 234 (SC), ld. DIT(E) did not accept the assessee s contention that it was providing education. She also relied on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh 66 Taxmanh 411 for rejecting the assessee s claim that it was imparting education. However, she accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... using to register the trust or institution, and copy of such order shall be sent to the applicant. 5.1. Thus, from a bare perusal of section it is evident that ld. DIT(E) has to satisfy himself about the object of the trust and the genuineness of its activities. From the order passed by ld. DIT(E) it is evident that she is not disputing that objects of the society are charitable in nature as she herself has said that the activities carried out by assessee were covered under fourth limb of section 2(15) viz. advancement of any other object of general public utility. At this juncture we may observe that we are not recording any findings as to under which limb of section 2(15) the assessee s activities fell, because at this juncture we have only to examine whether the activities carried on by assessee are charitable in nature or not. This is not disputed by ld. DIT(Exemption). 5.2. We may also clarify that as far as ld. DIT(E) s finding regarding applicability of proviso to section 2(15) is concerned, we are not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that assessee had received service charges from various organizations for conducting the programme and this cannot pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
