9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... register the trust u/s 12AA[1][b][ii] of the Act, on the ground that it was not possible for him to verify the genuineness of the objects and the activities of the trust, although they are self-evident and manifest and having regard to the genuineness of the objects and the activities of the religious institution the State Government itself in its wisdom enacted the provisions The Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1996 [Karnataka Act No.33 of 2001] [Act No.1] and The Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 [Act No.2] and in terms of the said enactments the appellant is a religious institution u/s.2[17], notified institution u/s.2[23] and a temple u/s.2[27] of The Hindu Religious institution governed by Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1996 [Karnataka Act No.33 of 2001] and ancient protected monument u/s.2[1] and 2[10] of the Karnataka Act No.7 of 1962 and a protected place of worship contemplated u/s.16 of the Karnataka Act No.7 of 1962 and by enacting the relevant statutes in exercise of the constitutional power to protect them under the Doctrine of State to act as 'parens pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being looked for several years by the general public and therefore been a recognized as a temple u/s.2[27] of Act No. 1, which has repealed, among others, the 'earlier governing Acts viz., Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institution Act, 1972, Madras, Hindu Religions and Charitable Act, 1957 as mentioned in the statements and objects of the Act No. 1. The Executive Officer is appointed by the State Government u/s.4 so also an advisory committee u/s. 20 of the Act No. 1 referred to above, as per the scheme notified by the Court and governed by the aforesaid Act No. 1. Thus, the Executive Officer alongwith the aforesaid committee are delegated the powers of the State Government, which represents the former crown or sovereign, having the character of 'parens patriae' Of the Obligation that was imposed upon the Crown of the duty Of watching over the interests of wards and charity in general in its kingdom and thus, the Government Of Karnataka, more or less, could be considered as the trustee or person in-charge for looking after the temples for religious purposes and to conduct its affairs as defined u/s.24 of the Act No. 1. 2. The appellant has come into existence lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the devotees Of the temple, who come to worship, to exercise his powers under the Act to accept endowments from the philanthropic public and devotees who come to worship in the temple and in order to add incentive to such devotees to make endowments to secure registration u/s. 12A of the I.T.Act, 1961 so that the devotees would come in large numbers to give endowments for the development Of the Temple and accordingly, the Executive Officer of the Temple applied for registration on 07/11/2016. 4. It is submitted that the learned ITO [Exemptions], Mangaluru, called for vide letter dated 28.04.2017 called for certain details in connection with the proceedings u/s. 12AA of the Act. The appellant vide letter dated 10.05.2017 filed some of the details called for by the learned CIT[E]. 5. Thereafter, the learned CIT[E] has passed the impugned order observing that in the absence of relevant details, it was not possible for him to verify the genuineness objects and the activities carried on by the trust despite the fact it is administered by the State Government under the two State Acts referred to above and the Executive Officer is the Officer Of the Statement Government appointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment of the Government of Karnataka. Drawing the attention of the Bench to the impugned order, the learned AR submits that the second reason for rejection of the assessee's application for registration is that relevant details were not made available. In respect of the first objection of the CIT(E), the learned AR submitted that under similar facts, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kokkada Shree Southadka Mahaganapathi Temple Vs. CIT(E), Bangalore in ITA No.354/Bang/2016 dated 16.06.2017, held that the CIT(E) had erred in rejecting the application for non-filing/part filing of details, and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration of the assessee's application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. It is submitted that in the case on hand also, the assessee is a notified institution u/s 23 of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1997 (Karnataka Act No.33 of 2001). It was prayed that since the facts in the case on hand is similar to the facts of the cited case i.e., Kokkada Shree Southadka Mahaganapthy Temple Vs. CIT(E), Bangalore (supra), the impugned order of the CIT(E) is liable to be set aside. 2.3 Per contra, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of this contention. He further submitted that the Revenue had filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the above decision and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as reported in 186 ITR (Statute) 32 (SC). Thus, according to him, the CIT (E) has committed an error in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under section 12AAof the I. T. Act. 4. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the orders of CIT (E). 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee temple is registered with the Endowments Department under section 6(c)(ii) of the A:P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Section 6 of the Act provides for preparation and publication of list of charitable and religious institutions and Endowments on the basis of the income. Clause-(c) and sub-clause (ii) thereof, provides for religious institutions and Endowments other than Mutts not falling under Clause- (a) or Clause-(b) of section-6 of the Act. The religious institutions and Endowments are defined under subsections 22 and 23 of Section-2 of the said Act. For the sake of ready reference, they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Laxminarayan Maharaj & Another vs. CIT (cited supra) has held that when a Trust is not created 'under an instrument i.e., "the document evidencing the creation of the Trut", the evidential document cannot be limited to documents which directly prove the creation of the trust and that all documents which afford a logical basis of inferring creation of the trust can be described to be "documents evidencing the creation of the trust" within the meaning of Rule 17A(a). In the case before us, since the certificate of registration with Endowments Department of the Government of A.P. is a document evidencing the creation of the Trust, we are of the opinion that the CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the application of the assessee for non- filing of the Trust Deed. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remand the same to his file for re-consideration of the assessee's application for registration under section 12AAby faking the certificate of registration with the Endowments Department as evidence of creation of trust. ITA.89/H/2016 Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple, Tamminapatnam, Chillakur (M), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is incorrect and the same is rejected, being devoid of any merit. 2.5.2 Material on record indicates that the assessee filed its application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 07.11.2016. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that after 5 months, various queries were raised and details/clarifications sought by the CIT(E) vide letter dated 28.04.2017; which the assessee was asked to comply with by 15.05.2017. In the impugned order it is mentioned that the assessee filed incomplete details/clarifications on 11.05.2017 and therefore in the absence of details and the CIT(E)'s view that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the matter, the application for registration has been dismissed ex-parte. In this regard, we observe from the impugned order that, after the assessee filed its application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act, on 07.11.2016, the office of the CIT(E) awoke to the existence of the assessee's application after more than 5 months later by issue of letter dated 28.04.2017 calling for details from the assessee, based in a mofussil area far away from Bangalore to file details by 15.05.2017. The assessee was afforded this one opportunity only and the CIT(E) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
