COMM OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA V. ALIPORE VIVEKANANDA SENIOR CITIZENS

ITA/38/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata, as the appellant, and Alipore Vivekananda Senior Citizens Society, as the respondent. The core issue was the denial of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of (Exemption) on the grounds that the society had not started its charitable activities. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal by the Commissioner. The High Court of Calcutta, referencing a similar case (Harnarayan Rajdulari Devi Taparia Charitable Trust), dismissed the appeal, affirming that the registration cannot be denied solely because the charitable activities had not commenced.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 746041 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata Vs. Harnarayan Rajdulari Devi Taparia Charitable Trust
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMEN BHATTACHARJEE
• Keywords: Charitable society; Genuineness of Activities; Income Tax; Registration Denial
• Section: 80G; 12AA(1)

Judgement Text

"O-85 ITA/38/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA -VERSUS- ALIPORE VIVEKANANDA SENIOR CITIZENS SOCIETY BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date : 2nd July, 2024. Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … for the appellant. Mr. S. M. Surana, Adv. ..for the respondent. 1. Heard Sri Bhattacharjee, learned junior standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Sri Surana, learned advocate for the respondent/assessee. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 24.11.2021 on the following substantial question of law: “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata is justified in observing that for granting registration under Section 12AA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 activity is not criteria ignoring the provision of Section 12AA(a) which requires that the Commissioner of Income Tax shall satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities? 2 b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata is correct in not appreciating that genuineness of activity cannot be examined there is no activity or if the activity has not commenced?” 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent is a society which was registered on 29.09.2016 under the Societies Registration Act. It applied for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’) on 04.01.2017. It also applied for grant of approval under Section 80G of the Act, 1961. The Commissioner of (Exemption) rejected the application of the assessee on the ground that the institution is yet to start its charitable activity, in accordance its objects which are charitable in nature. Aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner (Exemption), the respondent filed ITA Nos.1340 & 1341/Kol/2017 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 17.11.2017. ITAT not only noted the charitable activities of the respondent/assessee, but also held that rejection solely on the ground that the institution is yet to start its activities, cannot be sustained. The CIT(E) and ITAT both have found that the objects of the respondent/assessee institution is charitable. 4. On similar set of facts, this Court has rendered a judgment dated 01.07.2024 in ITA/111/2019 (Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata Vs. Harnarayan Rajdulari Devi Taparia Charitable Trust) holding that in matters of new institution, the application for registration under 3 Section 12AA cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the institution is yet to start its activities. 5. Both the learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in the case of Harnarayan Rajdulari Devi Taparia Charitable Trust (supra) and in view thereof, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and substantial questions of law are to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6. In view of the aforesaid and as jointly stated by learned counsel for the parties, the appeal (ITA/38/2021) is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.) As. "