TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.D Jain, Vice President And Shri T.S. Kapoor, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri P.K. Kapoor, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT, DR ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, A.M: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow dated 09.12.2020. The assessee has taken various grounds of appeal, however, the crux of grounds of appeal is the action of ld. CIT(E) whereby he has rejected the application made by the assessee for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. 2. The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the first date of hearing was fixed by ld. CIT(E) as 23.06.2020 but on that date the assessee filed application for adjournment and in this respect our attention was invited to P.B. pg. 47 where a copy of such adjournment application was placed and our attention was also invited to pg. 48 where the ld. CIT(E) had himself fixed the next date of hearing for 09.07.2020. The ld. AR submitted that instead of waiting for 09.07.2020 the assessee on 26.06.2020 itself filed complete reply to the query raised through questionnaire and in this respect our attention was invited to P.B. pgs. 65 to 299 wherein the various annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 taxmann.com 693 (SC) has clearly held that activities includes the proposed activities also and has held that for granting registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the ld. CIT(E) has to examine the activities including proposed activities. It was submitted that the nature of activities being proposed by the assessee are definitely charitable in nature which included running of school and other educational institutions and for promotion of culture etc. and the objects also included hunger, poverty malnutrition and promoting healthcare and sanitation and making available drinking water besides a lot of other charitable activities which necessarily fall into the definition of charitable activities as defined u/s. 2(15) of the Act and it was submitted that ld. CIT(E) had not raised any objection to the nature of charitable activities as mentioned in the trust deed and therefore it was prayed that ld. CIT(E) be directed to grant registration to the assessee forthwith. 3. The ld. CIT, DR on the other hand, heavily placed reliance on the order of ld. CIT(E) and submitted that while granting registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. ld. CIT(E) is empowered to require the assessee to demonstrate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause with respect to irrevocability has been added. The ld. CIT(E) in his order has not mentioned about the supplementary trust deed and has only discussed the original trust deed and held that the irrevocability clause is not there whereas he should have taken into account the supplementary trust deed also which was available with him before the date of passing order on 09.12.2020. Therefore, this argument of ld. CIT(E) is not valid. As regards the other objection regarding not carrying out of charitable activities, we find that the note on activities conducted during last three years is placed at pgs. 283 to 287 which was also before him and coupled with the objects stated in the trust deed the ld. CIT(E) should have granted registration to the assessee which he has not done and rejected the application on flimsy grounds of not having undertaken any charitable activity during the earlier years whereas the fact remains that the examination of note on activities clearly demonstrate that assessee did carry out the charitable activities. Before us in the form of additional evidences, the assessee has filed the Income and Expenditure Account and balance sheet for the FY 2019-20 along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuine 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. 13. We therefore find that the view of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment is correct and liable to be upheld. 14. 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. 15. 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) Vol.247 ITR 18. That view however does not commend itself. However, the facts in Self Employers Service Society (Supra) suggest that the Commissioner of Income Tax had observed that the applicant for registration as a Trust had undertaken activities wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
