9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.05.2017. The assessee was afforded this one opportunity only and the CIT(E), after no apparent action for more than 5 months from the date of the assessee’s application for registration u/s 12AA dated 07.11.2016; in less than a month proceeded to call for details, examine them and reject the assessee’s application ex-parte vide order dated 22.05.2017 - apparent reason for this hurried disposal of the assessee’s application by CIT(E) with undue haste was because as per section 12AA(2) of the Act, order for grant or rejection of registration was to be passed before the expiry of 6 months from the end of the month in which the application for registration was received; i.e., in the case on hand the CIT(E) was bound to pass the order on or before 31.05.2017. The proviso to section 12AA(1) of the Act clearly provides that no order under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 12AA(1) shall be passed unless the applicant has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The facts as emanate from the record in the impugned order clearly shows that the assessee in the case on hand was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard - thus set aside the impugned order and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... triae' of the charities in the state and in exercise of the power and duty, the State continued to look after the conduct of its affairs by appointing an Executive Officer and a Committee under relevant Act and the accounts are all audited and approved by the State and therefore, the finding of the learned CIT[E] is perverse and contrary to record in as much as the appellant has filed all the relevant details like audited accounts, gazette notification, etc., for him to satisfy about the genuineness of the objects and the CIT[E] has overlooked the self-evident and facts that the appellant is a religious institution as recognized by the Act carrying on certain charitable activities and consequently, is entitled to registration u/s.12A of the Act, notwithstanding there is no formal deed of trust. 3. The learned DIT[E] ought to have appreciated that the appellant temple came into existence long before the enactment of Income-tax Act and the objects of appellant trust have been pleaded before him and the same is undoubtedly religious and charitable in nature and accepted as a religious institution under two State Acts and therefore, the learned CIT is not justified in rejectin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into existence long before the enactment of the Income-tax and also comes within the ambit Of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 (the Karnataka Act No. 21 being notified institution under clause 20 of the aforesaid Act No.2. Thus, the appellant is a Hindu Religious institution governed by Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1996 [Act No. I] performing certain charitable acts within the meaning of clause 2[17] of the aforesaid Act No. 1. The activities of the appellant also falls u/s.2[15] of the l.T.Act and it is submitted that the appellant temple is a place of public worship of renown. It is a place of pilgrimage visited by thousands of people every year and there can be no doubt about the genuineness of the religious and charitable activities that are conducted by the religious institution. The Executive Officer Of the appellant has also furnished the main Objectives of the appellant, which is to carry out the worship of Lord Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Mahakali md to give aid to the poor and to provide free mid day meals to pilgrims and votees, etc., every day who come to worship the deity idol. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement Government appointed under the two State Acts to look after the religious institution and audited accounts as required under the statute are also filed before him, Which testify very eloquently the genuineness of the activities carried and above alt the appellant is a religious institution and in order to win exemption u/s. 11 of the l.T.Act, registration of the trust is a must not only by a trust but also a religious institution also and there would be no formal trust deed in the case of religious institution of the kind of the appellant, which is regulated and controlled by State Government in exercise of its sovereign duty and power under two State Acts referred to above. 6. The learned CIT[E] has serious failed to appreciate that the State Government has taken over the temple to discharge its duty as a sovereign by enacting two State Acts referred to above and in exercise of its powers had appointed the official under the Act for the administration of the deity idol consecrated long ago dating back to more than 800 years and also its properties under the enacted statutes and has appointed members of the Committee by Gazette notification and also appointed the Execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be set aside. 2.3 Per contra, the learned DR supported the order of the CIT(E) and submitted that a clear finding is rendered therein by the CIT(E) that in the absence of relevant details, it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the objectives and activities of the assessee trust. The learned DR submitted that even if it is held that the assessee s application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act deserves consideration, then the matter be restored back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after examination of the relevant details which should be made available to him by the assessee. 2.4.1 We have considered the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncement cited (supra). On a perusal of the cited case of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal i.e., Kokkada Shree Southadka Mahaganapthy Temple Vs. CIT(E), Bangalore, in ITA No. 354/Bang/2016 dated 16.06.2017, it is seen that, just as in the cited case, in the case on hand also, the assessee trust has been notified under the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1997; as also the Executive Officer is appointed thereunder. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 of the said Act. For the sake of ready reference, they are reproduced hereunder: (22) 'Religious endowments' means property (including movable property) and religious ITA_ 89/H/2016 Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple, Tamminapatnam, Chillakur (M), SPSR Nellore. offerings whether in cash or kind, given or endowed for the support of a religious institution or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof. Explanation-1 :- All property which belonged to or was given or endowed for the support of a religious institution, or which was given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity shall be deemed to be a religious endowment within the meaning of this definition, notwithstanding that, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, the religious institution has ceased to exist or ceased to be used as a place of religious worship or instruction or the service or charity has ceased to be performed. Explanation-II :- Any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f trust. ITA.89/H/2016 Sri Kodandaramaswamy Temple, Tamminapatnam, Chillakur (M), SPSR Nellore. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 4. From the above paras reproduced from the Tribunal order cited by the Id. AR of the assessee, we find that in that case also, the assessee was a very ancient temple under the administrative control of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Nellore and the same was registered under Endowments Act and its affairs were managed by the Executive Officer of the temple appointed by the Department of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh. In the present case also, the assessee trust had been notified under Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997 by the state of Karnataka and an Executive Officer was appointed as per Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997. Therefore we are of the opinion that first objection of the CIT(E) for rejecting the assessee s application for registration by saying that the trust is a temple administered by the Endowment Department of Government of Karnataka is not valid. These objections are rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alore to file details by 15.05.2017. The assessee was afforded this one opportunity only and the CIT(E), after no apparent action for more than 5 months from the date of the assessee s application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act, dated 07.11.2016; in less than a month proceeded to call for details, examine them and reject the assessee s application ex-parte vide order dated 22.05.2017. It appears to us that the apparent reason for this hurried disposal of the assessee s application by CIT(E) with undue haste was because as per section 12AA(2) of the Act, order for grant or rejection of registration was to be passed before the expiry of 6 months from the end of the month in which the application for registration was received; i.e., in the case on hand the CIT(E) was bound to pass the order on or before 31.05.2017. The proviso to section 12AA(1) of the Act clearly provides that no order under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of section 12AA(1) shall be passed unless the applicant has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. In our considered view, the facts as emanate from the record in the impugned order clearly shows that the assessee in the case on hand was not afforded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
