9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of a Trust under sub-section (3) of section 12AA of the Act. There the Commissioner would be bound to record the finding that an activity or activities actually carried on by the Trust are not genuine being not in accordance with the objects of the Trust. Similarly, the situation would be different where the trust has before applying for registration found to have undertaken activities contrary to the objects of the Trust. We therefore find that the in view FOUNDATION OF OPHTHALMIC OPTOMETRY RESEARCH EDUCATION CENTRE [ 2012 (8) TMI 777 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that a newly registered Trust is entitled for registration under section 12AA on the basis of its objects, without any activity having been undertaken is correct and liable to be upheld. Registration u/s 12AA - found not to have spent any part of its income on charitable activities - object of the provision in question is to ensure that the activities undertaken by the Trust are not contrary to its objects and that a Commissioner is entitled to refuse registration if the activities are found contrary to the objects of the Trust. In the present case, what has been found is that the Trust had not spent any amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments or information from the trust or institution as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution and may also make such inquiries as he may deem necessary in this behalf; and (b) after satisfying himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities, he- (i) shall pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution; (ii) shall, if he is not so satisfied, pass an order in writing refusing to register the trust or institution, and a copy of such order shall be sent to the applicant : Provided that no order under sub-clause (ii) shall be passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (1A) All applications, pending before the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner on which no order has been passed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) before the 1st day of June, 1999, shall stand transferred on that day to the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner and the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may proceed with such applications under that sub- section from the stage at which they were on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncipal Commissioner or the Commissioner of the Income Tax on receipt of an application for registration of a trust to call for such documents as may be necessary to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution and make inquiries in that behalf; it empowers the Commissioner to thereupon register the trust if he is satisfied about the objects of the trust or institution and genuineness of its activities. In the present case, the trust was formed as a society on 30.05.2008 and it applied for registration on 10.07.2008 i.e. within a period of about two months. No activities had been undertaken by the respondent Trust before the application was made. The Commissioner rejected the application on the sole ground that since no activities have been undertaken by the trust, it was not possible to register it, presumably because it was not possible to be satisfied about whether the activities of the trust are genuine. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short, the Tribunal ) reversed the orders of the Commissioner. The Revenue Department approached the High Court by way of filing an appeal. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent where the Commissioner proposes to cancel the registration of a Trust under sub-section (3) of section 12AA of the Act. There the Commissioner would be bound to record the finding that an activity or activities actually carried on by the Trust are not genuine being not in accordance with the objects of the Trust. Similarly, the situation would be different where the trust has before applying for registration found to have undertaken activities contrary to the objects of the Trust. We therefore find that the view of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment is correct and liable to be upheld. Ms. Bhati, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, fairly drew our attention to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in IT Appeal No.36 of 2013 titled as Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. R.S. Bajaj Society which has taken the same view as that of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment. The Allahabad High Court has also referred to a similar view taken by the High Courts of Karnataka and Punjab Haryana. Apparently, a contrary view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of Self Employers Service Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
