THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH V. M/S GAUSHALA TRUST SOCIETY, AMBALA CITY

ITA/23/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had granted registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to M/s Gaushala Trust Society. The Commissioner had initially refused the registration citing reasons such as the Gaushala's lack of property ownership, substantial fixed deposits, minimal expenditure on veterinary care, and the sale of milk produced by the cows. However, the Tribunal found that these reasons were either misinterpreted or not applicable, as the Gaushala was using the fixed deposits for potential relocation and that only a small percentage of cows were milk-producing, with the proceeds likely supporting the Gaushala's operations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 763404 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: DENESH GOYAL
• Keywords: Exemptions; Fixed Deposit; Income Tax; Registration; Gaushala; Milk Production
• Section: 12(A)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.23 of 2019 (O&M) 1 119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.23 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.08.2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh ...... Appellant versus M/s Gaushala Trust Society, Spatu Road, Ambala City, Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench 'A', Chandigarh dated 11.07.2018 reversing that of the Commissioner, Income Tax, Chandigarh whereby the Commissioner had refused registration under Section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) to the respondent-Gaushala. 2. The respondent admittedly runs a Gaushala where there are 540 odd cows. It had applied for registration under Section 12 A of the Act and the same was rejected by the Commissioner holding :- (i)that the respondent did not have any property in its name. (ii) that it had large FDRs. (iii)that out of total revenue of Rs.1.36 crores for the year ending 31.03.2017 it had spent only Rs.1.44 lakhs on POOJA SHARMA 2019.08.29 16:01 I am the author of this document ITA No.23 of 2019 (O&M) 2 providing medicines to the cows. (iv)that it was selling milk which the cows in its possession were producing. 3. The respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal which noticed that the respondent had claimed that only about 15% to 20% of the cows were yielding milk. The Tribunal further noticed that the Deputy Director, ICD Project Ambala City had certified that the amount of milk which was being produced by the respondent would be the yield of about 75 to 80 cows. The Tribunal noticed that earlier the respondent was functioning from its own premises but those premises were acquired by the Government and the compensation amount was put in a fixed deposit because the present premises which were occupied by the respondent were under litigation and therefore the respondent was justified in keeping this fixed deposit amount so that in case it had to vacate the present premises it could acquire some other suitable premises for itself. The Tribunal also noticed that the Commissioner had given a completely presumptuous finding that the objects of the respondent were to look after only sick and injured cows where as the object of the respondent was to maintain all the cows. The Tribunal noticed that the Commissioner inexplicably did not understand or could not understand that the society was maintaining and feeding and looking after 540 cows and therefore the finding that it was spending only a meager amount of its earning was wrong. The Tribunal also noticed that the finding of the Commissioner that since the respondent had no immovable property it could not claim benefit was wrong. POOJA SHARMA 2019.08.29 16:01 I am the author of this document ITA No.23 of 2019 (O&M) 3 4. We are in agreement with the views of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 5. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 26.08.2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2019.08.29 16:01 I am the author of this document "