Chandra Prakash Foundation, Pune V. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions),

ITA 1004/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1637 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Competent authority
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , !'!! # , $ % BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 CHANDRA PRAKASH FOUNDATION, G-13, PARESH INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, 45/2, SHANKAR SHETH ROAD, PUNE 411037 PAN : AABTC6942N ....... / APPELLANT &' / V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. RASTOGI / DATE OF HEARING : 29-06-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-06-2016 ( / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE DATED 29-06 -2015 PASSED U/S. 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFT ER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) R.W. RULE 17A OF THE INCOME T AX RULES, 1962 DECLINING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 2. THE APPELLANT APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE AC T IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM VIDE APPLICATION DATED 03-12-2014. THE PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) SOUGHT SOME MORE INFORMATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TRUST VIDE COMMUNICATION DATE D 14-05-2015. OSTENSIBLY, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE INFORMA TION VIDE LETTER DATED 28-05-2015. THEREAFTER, THE PR. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY CITING VARIOUS SHORTCOMINGS IN THE INFORMATION FURNISHED AND THE TRUST DEED . AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRA TION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI V.L. JAIN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITT ED THAT THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS R EJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A BY RAISING SUP ERFLUOUS OBJECTIONS. THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN REJE CTED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THE TRUST IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950. II. ORIGINAL TRUST DEED IS NOT ENCLOSED ALONG WITH APPLICATION. III. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE PAN. IV. ONE OF THE OBJECTS IN THE TRUST DEED IS TO CARRY ON TH E ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST THROUGH ITS BRANCHES IN INDIA AND ELSEWHERE. V. THE SETTLER AND THE TRUSTEES ARE FROM THE SAME FAMILY H AVING ABSOLUTE AND UNFETTERED CONTROL OVER THE MANAGEMENT. 3 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 3.1 THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 12A OF THE ACT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE TRUST APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A SHOULD BE REGISTERED UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950. THE INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT AS A PRE-REQUISITE FOR REGISTRATIO N U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND MARKET COMMITTEE , HINGANGHAT & ORS. REPORTED AS 291 ITR 419 (BOM). THE LD. AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE APPELLANT IS NOW REGIS TERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950. THEREFOR E, THE FIRST OBJECTION OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HA S BECOME REDUNDANT. THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD A PHOTOCOPY OF T HE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CHARITY COMMISSIONER ON 20-08-2015. 3.2 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ORIGINAL TRUST DEED IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE PR. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 14-05-20 15 (AT PAGES 20 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK) ASKED FOR CERTIFIED CO PY OF TRUST DEED ONLY. THE APPELLANT FILED THE SAME ALONG WITH ITS LETTER DAT ED 28-05- 2015 WHICH IS AT PAGES 23 TO 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN RESPECT OF OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EX EMPTIONS) THAT NO PAN IS FILED, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT A PERUSAL OF LETTER DATED 28-05-2015 AT PAGE 23 AND THE SUBSEQUENT LETTER DATE D 30-05-2015 AT PAGE 29, DATED 11-06-2015 AT PAGE 31, DATED 23-06-20 15 AT PAGE 35 AND DATED 27-06-2015 AT PAGE 36 OF PAPER BOOK WOULD S HOW THAT IN EACH COMMUNICATION THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIONED PAN IN THE TITLE ITSELF. 4 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 THEREFORE, THE REASON FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS NO PAN IS AGAINST THE FACTS ON RECORD. THE LD. AR FUR THER CONTENDED THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLA NT THROUGH ITS BRANCHES IN INDIA AND ELSEWHERE DOES NOT INFER THAT TH E APPELLANT WOULD NECESSARILY CARRY OUT ITS ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE TER RITORY OF INDIA. EVEN OTHERWISE SECTION 12A DOES NOT BAR THE APPELLANT FR OM CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES BEYOND THE TERRITORY OF INDIA. WIT H REGARD TO THE OBJECTION OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMP TIONS) THAT THE TRUST CONSISTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY HA VING ABSOLUTE AND UNFETTERED CONTROL OVER THE MANAGEMENT, THE LD. AR C ONTENDED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE FOR GE NERAL PUBLIC. AS LONG AS THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE FOR GENERAL PUBLIC IT WOULD NOT MATTER WHETHER THE TRUST IS MANAGED BY MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OR UNRELATED PERSONS. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. MANSUKHI DEVI BIHANI JAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X REPORTED AS 83 TTJ JODH 763. THE LD. AR PRAYED FOR GRA NTING REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI S.K. RASTOGI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT STRONGLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF THE AC T. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) WAS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MAD E AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATIO N OF TRUST UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT AND THE SAID APPLICATION IS STILL 5 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 PENDING. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE APPELLANT HAS TA KEN ALTOGETHER A DIFFERENT STAND. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLA NT THAT THE REGISTRATION OF TRUST UNDER THE LOCAL ACT IS NOT MANDATO RY IS NOT TENABLE. UNLESS THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER ENDORSES THE OBJECT OF T HE TRUST, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW T HE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT SO FAR. THE DECISION RENDERED IN TH E CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND MA RKET COMMITTEE, HINGANGHAT & ORS. (SUPRA) IS IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT A ND ON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. THEREFORE, THE SAME WOULD NOT APPL Y IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE PR. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID DECI SION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HAS DISTINGUISHED THE SAM E. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SETTLER OF THE TRUST IS A LSO A TRUSTEE AND ALL THE TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST ARE CLOSELY RELATED AND A RE FROM THE SAME FAMILY. THEREFORE, THE TRUST CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A PUBLIC TRUST. THE LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE OBJECTS O F THE TRUST WOULD SHOW THAT THE SAME ARE VAGUE. THE AREA OF OPERATION O F ACTIVITIES IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED BY T HE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) WHILE DECIDING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR REGISTRATION. THE LD. DR PRAY ED FOR UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEM PTIONS). THE LD. DR MADE AN ALTERNATE PLEA THAT THE MATTER CAN B E REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) FO R RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 5. THE LD. AR REBUTTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF T HE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST U/S. 12A, THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS TO PRIMARILY SEE THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE OR NOT. THE APPELLANT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FORMAT ION OF TRUST MADE AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF TH E ACT. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY OF THE CHARITABLE ACTIVIT IES MENTIONED IN THE OBJECTS. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AR E NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE LD. AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE OBJEC TS OF THE TRUST WHETHER THEY ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE OR NOT ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) AND NOT TH E CHARITY COMMISSIONER. BOTH THESE AUTHORITIES ARE DIFFERENT AND OPE RATE IN DIFFERENT ARENA. IF THE TRUST IS REGISTERED WITH THE CHARIT Y COMMISSIONER IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE TRUS T IS CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AND WOULD THEREFORE, AUTOMATICALLY BE ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT OF REGIS TRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. IF THAT BE SO THE PURPOSE OF MAKING APP LICATION U/S. 12A FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION WOULD BE MERELY A FORMALITY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE APPELLANT HAS IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IN NOT GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S. 12A ON THE GROUND S : I. THAT THE TRUST IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TR UST ACT, 1950; II. ORIGINAL TRUST DEED IS NOT ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION; III. THE TRUST IS NOT HAVING PAN; 7 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 IV. ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST IS TO CARRY ON ITS ACT IVITIES THROUGH ITS BRANCHES IN INDIA AND ELSEWHERE; AND V. ALL THE TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST ARE FROM THE SAME FAMILY. 7. IN SO FAR AS THE FIRST OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PR. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) WITH RESPECT TO REGISTRATION UND ER ACT OF 1950 IS CONCERNED, THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS FILED REGISTRAT ION CERTIFICATE DATED 20-08-2015 ISSUED BY CHARITY COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950. THE SAID CERT IFICATE HAS INDEED BEEN ISSUED AFTER THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER. BEFORE THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT IS PENDING. NOW, THE CERTIFICATE HA S BEEN ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THE OBJECTION OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) STANDS COMPLIED WITH. 8. THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IS THAT THE ORIGINAL TRUST DEED WAS NOT ENCLO SED WITH THE APPLICATION. A PERUSAL OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24-05-20 15 AT PAGE 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAD ASKED FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TRUST DEED AND NOT ORIGINAL TRUST DEED. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE AC T. HOWEVER, THIS CANNOT BE A VALID REASON FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A COPY/CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TRUST DEED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. 8 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 9. THE THIRD OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT HAVING PAN. WE OB SERVE THAT THIS OBJECTION IS UNWARRANTED. THE APPELLANT IN ALL HIS COMM UNICATIONS PLACED ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK HAS MENTIONED PAN ALLOTTED TO THE TRUST. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPT IONS), IGNORANT OF THE FACT OR WITHOUT PERUSING THOSE LETTERS FR OM THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THIS UNCALLED FOR OBJECTION. THE APPELLANT MAY N OT HAVE FILED THE COPY OF PAN CARD, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED PAN DETAILS WHICH ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE APP LICATION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRONG PAN DETAILS. 10. ANOTHER REASONS FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION WAS THE WORD ELSEWHERE MENTIONED IN THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. THE RELEVANT CLAUSE IS REPRODUCED HERE-IN-UNDER : TO RUN, MAINTAIN, CONTROL AND MANAGE BRANCHES OF T HE TRUST IN INDIA AND ELSEWHERE. 11. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE WORD ELSEWHERE IS MENTIONED BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARY MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD CARRYING ON ITS ACTIVITIES BEYOND THE INDIAN TERRITORY. AT THE SAME TIME THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONT ENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT DO NOT BAR THE APPELLAN T TO CARRY ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES BEYOND THE INDIAN TERRITORY. IN SUPP ORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE O N THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.K. NAMBY AR SAARC LAW CHARITABLE TRUST VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. REPORTED AS 269 ITR 55 6 (DEL). IN THE SAID CASE THE APPLICANT HAD APPLIED FOR GRAN T OF 9 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 REGISTRATION U/S. 12A AND RECOGNITION U/S. 80G OF THE ACT. THE APPLICATIONS WERE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLIC ANT ITSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT SCHOLARSHIP CAN BE PAID TO THE MEMBERS EV EN OUTSIDE INDIA. IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION OF APPLICANT THAT THE ACTIVIT IES WILL EXTEND OUTSIDE INDIA, THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A WAS DENIE D. THE APPELLANT CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (EXEMPTIONS). THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : 3. SO FAR AS THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1)(A) IS CO NCERNED, IT CAN BE EXTENDED ONLY TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA. HOWEVER, IF THE INCOME IS APPLIE D TO THE PURPOSES OUTSIDE INDIA, THEN CLAUSE (C) WILL BE APPLICABLE A ND IF THE PERMISSION IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD EITHER BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL O RDER THEN, BENEFIT CAN BE EXTENDED. SECTION 12AA PRESCRIBES THE PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION. READING THE SECTION, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT AFTER TH E APPLICATION IS MADE, THE OFFICER HAS TO CALL FOR DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATIO N FROM THE TRUST TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVI TIES OF THE TRUST. HE CAN MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY. IT I S ONLY AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST A ND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES THAT HE HAS TO PASS AN ORDER IN WRIT ING REGISTERING THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. AND IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED, HE CAN REJECT THE SAME. THIS SECTION DOES NOT REFER TO THE ACTIVITIES IN INDIA O R OUTSIDE INDIA. IT REFERS TO APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS P URPOSES IN INDIA AS ALSO WITH DIRECTION OR ORDER OF THE BOARD FOR APPLICATIO N OF INCOME AS AFORESAID OUTSIDE INDIA. READING THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO EXAMINE THE PURPOSE FOR SATISFYING H IMSELF THAT THE ACTIVITIES ARE GENUINE. IT WAS OPEN FOR HIM TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES IN THIS BEHALF AND TO PASS AN ORDER AS PER THE PROC EDURE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE SAID ACT. SO FAR AS INCOME WHIC H IS APPLIED OUTSIDE INDIA IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT A RELEVANT CRITERIA F OR REJECTING THE APPLICATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 11(1)(A) AND (C), ONE CANNOT SEEK BENEFIT FOR APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR C HARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, OUTSIDE INDIA. THEREFORE, THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AN NEXED AT PAGE 32, 10 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 WHICH IS BASED ON IRRELEVANT CRITERIA IS QUASHED AN D SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION STRICTLY IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT EVEN THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH. IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE APPLICAT IONS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS BY THE COMMISSIONER. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WE HOLD THAT PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT BAR FOR GRAN T OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A, IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT EXTENDED BEYOND INDIAN TERRITORY. HOWEVER, THE BENEFIT SECTION 11 WOULD BE AVAILA BLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN INDIA. 12. THE LAST GROUND FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION WAS TH AT ALL THE TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST ARE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE MANAGEME NT OF A TRUST WHETHER MANAGED BY ONE PARTICULAR FAMILY OR UNRELATED PE RSONS DOES NOT DETERMINE THE NATURE OF TRUST. WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IS W HETHER THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST AND THE APPLICATION OF ITS INCOME AND PROPERTY ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC. 13. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF RE GISTRATION U/S. 12A ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE TRU ST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950. THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION OF AP PELLANT FOR REGISTRATION. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) TO RECONSIDER THE 11 ITA NO. 1004/PN/2015 APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT AND GRANT REGISTRATION AFTER APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE APPELLANT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 30 TH JUNE, 2016 RK ()*$+,'-'.+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. PR. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE 4. !'( %%)* , )* , + ,-. , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 5. ( / 01 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #2 / BY ORDER, %3 ). / PRIVATE SECRETARY, )* , / ITAT, PUNE