TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.9.2008 is not in accordance with law. The finding of Ld. CIT in this regard is thus not justified - no substance in the contention of the DR that while making alteration in the trust deed the appellant has violated the provisions laid down in clause 17 of the original deed which provides the manner of making, altering or rescinding Rules and Regulations - direction to grant registration u/s 12A - in favour of assessee. Refusal in granting approval u/s 80 G - Held that:- As grant of registration u/s 12A has been allowed application for exemption u/s 80 G too need to be allowed - in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .NOs. 3536 & 3537/Del/2008 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2012 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Adv Respondent by: Smt. Veena Joshi, DR ORDER PER I.C.SUDHIR, JM: The assessee has questioned order dated 23/10/2008 of the Ld. CIT passed u/s 12 AA of the Act on the following grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT has erred in law and on facts in not granting registration u/s 12AA. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliable Educational Alliance Society Vs. CIT 31 DTR 239 (Delhi). 4. The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Director of IT Vs. Garden City Educational Trust 28 DTR 139 (Kar). 2. Dharma Sansthapak Sangh (Iniyas) Vs. CIT, 13 DTR 589 (Delhi). 3. CIT Vs. Red Rose School 212 CTR 394 (All). 4. Dream Land Educational Trust Vs. CIT 109 TTJ 850 (ASR). 5. The Ld. AR further pointed out that vide order dated 30th March 2011 the Ld. CIT has allowed registration to the appellant which was sought vide application filed on 12.11.2010. This registration had been granted on similar objects of the appellant for the A.Y. 2011-12 onwards. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the order dated 30th March 2011 of the Ld. CIT, whereby approval u/s 80 G (5) of the Act has been granted to the donation received from financial year 2010-11 relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12 onwards. The Ld. AR pointed out further that on similar fact the registration u/s 12 A (1) (a) of the Act has been directed to be allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Manav Rachana Educational Society vide order dated 25th May 2012 in ITA Nos. 1148/Del/2010 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Dream Land Educational Trust Vs. CIT (Supra) on the scope of inquiry by the CIT for granting registration u/s 12 A has held that the CIT having found no fault with objects of the trust and genuineness of its activities, was not justified in refusing registration u/s 12 A on extraneous considerations. Thus it is clear that at the stage of granting registration on the application of registration by trust, the Ld. CIT has to verify the objects of the trust as to whether it is charitable and the genuineness of its activities. He is not required to refuse registration u/s 12 A on extraneous considerations. Now we have to examine the order impugned as to whether the Ld. CIT was justified in coming to the conclusion that objects of the trust were not charitable. Having gone through the order impugned we find that the Ld. CIT has given his finding on the eligibility of the required registration in Para no. 6 to 17 of the first appellate order. The Ld. CIT has referred several objects of the trust and after noting his discussion on the same has held that these are not for charitable purpose. The Ld. CIT has referred object nos. 4 (i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi) (vii) of the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r learning offering innovative and job oriented courses with special emphasis on research and development in the fields of technical education, health sciences including medical /Para medical /dental education, law, schience and technology etc. at par with the best in India and abroad. (v) To provide for instruction and training insuch branches of learning as it may deem fit and to manage and run. (vi) To provide for research, innovation and for the advancement of and dissemination of knowledge. (vii) To undertake extramural studies, extension programmes and field outreach activities to contribute to the development of society . 8. Referring above objects the Ld. CIT in Para no 4 of the order impugned has observed that except the aims at no. 4 (iii) and (vii) all other aims/objects are objects having full potential of carrying on activities in the nature of trade, commercial, or business, in spite of declaration to the contrary mentioned in object no. 4 (vii). The Ld. CIT invited comments of the appellant on above observation but he was not satisfied with the reply of the appellant. Having gone through the above objects we find that all the objects mentioned in Para no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a public trust are generally indeterminate. It was held further that the Settlor felt that in one of the original object clauses true intention was not being reflected hence modification to this effect to clarify his intention by the supplementary deed is permissible. The exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. In the present case both the supplementary trust deeds are duly registered by the Sub-registrar, Faridabad and there is no reason to doubt the explanation of the appellant that modifications were made in the original trust deed to make the objects of the trust more clear. It is not the case of the revenue that in the supplementary trust deed some non-charitable objects have been introduced. In absence of such observation by the revenue we do not find reason to doubt the validity of the supplementary trust deed executed on 22nd Sep. 2008 which is the finally amended trust deed. The Ld. CIT has not specified as to how the supplementary trust deed dated 22.9.2008 is not in accordance with law. The finding of Ld. CIT in this regard is thus not justified. The decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT to justify his action in refusing the validity of supplementary trust deed are also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellant since there is no allegation against the founder or the trustees that they have detracted from the declaration of the trust. 13. There is also no substance in the contention of the Ld. DR that while making alteration in the trust deed the appellant has violated the provisions laid down in clause 17 of the original deed which provides the manner of making, altering or rescinding Rules and Regulations. There is no specific allegation as to how the appellant has violated the provisions laid down under clause 17 of the trust deed hence the allegation is vague. Undisputedly the supplementary trust deed dated 22nd Sep. 2008 in question is a registered deed. 14. Besides, the appellant under similar facts has been granted registration by the Ld. CIT vide order dated 30th March 2011 for the A.Y. 2011-12 onwards. The Ld. CIT has also granted approval sought u/s 80 G (5) of the Act on 30th March 2011 for the A.Y. 2011-12 onwards. 15. In view of the above discussion we do not concur with the finding of the Ld. CIT that the objects of the appellant are not for imparting education hence not charitable nor was any reason with the Ld. CIT to treat the supplementary trust deed e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
