Bhai Mansa Singh Ji Welfare Society (Regd.), Jagadhari V. CIT, Panchkula

ITA 1040/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 104021514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJ MOHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1040/CHD/2014 (UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT) BHAI MANSA SINGH JI VS. THE C.I.T., WELFARE SOCIETY(REGD.), PANCHKULA. BURJA GATE, JAGADHRI. PAN: AABTB8920F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL VERMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.08.2015 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA DATED 27.10.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 12A A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT BHAI MANSA SINGH JI WELFARE SOCIETY, BURIA GATE, JAGADHRI WAS CREATED O N 4.5.2011. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY MADE AN APPLICATIO N FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT IN FORM NO.10A ON 2 25.4.2013. THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE ORDER NO.327 DATED 19.8.2013 IN VIEW OF THE VIOLATI ON OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND INSUF FICIENT ACTIVITIES WITH REGARD TO OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH. THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH B ENCH A VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.1.2014 HELD AS UNDER : IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO DECIDE THE SAME DE- NOVO AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN TOTALITY BOTH IN RESPECT OF THE AI MS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND ALSO THE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE SOCIETY AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME NECESSARY ORDER MAY BE PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE A RE NOT COMMENTING UPON THE FACT THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIE S OR NOT. THE SAID ASPECT WILL BE VERIFIED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN LINE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND THEN THE ISSUE BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSED'. 3. IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A. T., THE CASE WAS AGAIN TAKEN UP BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA. AFTER VARIOUS CORRESPONDENC ES BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE 3 ACT WAS AGAIN REJECTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. HE WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECT S OF THE SOCIETY IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS : I) NO SUBSTANTIAL CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. NO SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY WA S FURNISHED. II) NO FUNDS APPLIED BY THE SOCIETY TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE CHARITABLE IN NATU RE. III) THE BUILDING IN QUESTION, ON WHICH THE SOCIETY IS FUNCTIONING/RUNNING, HAS NO LIEN WITH THE SOCIETY. IV) AS PER MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLE OF THE SOCIETY, MOST OF THE MEMBER/OFFICE BEARERS AR E FROM CHADHA FAMILY AND ARE RELATIVES OF EACH OTHER AND DESCENDANTS OF THE SAME SAINT. V) NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED REGARDING RECEIPT OF DONATION WHETHER THE SAME IS RECEIVED TOWARDS CORPUS FUND OR VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION. VI) ONE OF THE AMENDED OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY SHOWS THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS THE FURTHERANCE O F THE CAUSE OF A PARTICULAR/SPECIFIC SECT OR BIRADARI OF BHAI MANSA SINGH JI AS PER POINT (IV) OF AIMS AND OBJECT S SUPRA WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 'TO RUN THE SOCIETY FOR BENEFIT OF POOR & GENERAL PU BLIC AT LARGE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL AID, EDUCATION INSTITUTION S, SCHOLARSHIPS, SPORTS, BLOOD DONATION CAMPS, OTHER FACILITIES & ACTIVITIES ON THE TEACHINGS OF BHAI MAN SA SINGH JI'. 4 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE SAID REASONS WERE AGAINST THE S PIRIT OF SECTION 13(1)(B) OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE APPLICAT ION FOR REGISTRATION WAS REJECTED. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE U S AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERR ED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN REJECTING REGISTRATION U NDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WHICH IS ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFI ED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITY AS PER THE OBJECTS WHICH IS UNFOUNDED, WITHOU T ANY BASIS AND AS SUCH THE ORDER IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFI ED. 3. THAT THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN REFUSED ONLY ON TH E BASIS OF SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WHICH IS NOT PERM ITTED UNDER THE LAW AND AS SUCH THE ORDER REFUSING REGISTR ATION IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FURTH ER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS AGAINST T HE SPIRIT OF SECTION 13(L)(B) OF THE ACT WHICH IS UNFOUNDED, WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AS SUCH THE ORDER IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIE D. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE ARGU ING BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REJECTING THE APPLICATIO N FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT IS NOT A S PER LAW. 5 HE TRIED TO RESOLVE ALL THE REASONS FOR SAID REJECT ION MADE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AS REPRODUCE D HEREINABOVE. REGARDING POINT NOS.(I) AND (II) I.E . NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO FUNDS WERE APPLIED TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF TH E SOCIETY. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOO K WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A DETAILED NOTE ON T HE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SOCIETY AND ALSO ITS P ROPOSED ACTIVITIES. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF T HE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUCHINTA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. CIT. REGARDING THE POINT NO.(III) THAT THE BUILDING IN QUESTION HAS NO LIEN WITH THE SOCIE TY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SOCIETY IS BEING RUN IN A HISTOR ICAL GURUDWARA BUILT IN THE MEMORY OF BHAI MANSA SINGH J I LOCATED AT BURIA GATE, JAGADHRI. THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GURUDWARA HAD PROVIDED A SMALL PLACE TO HOUSE THE O FFICE OF THE SOCIETY FREE OF COST, BESIDES PROVIDING ITS OTH ER PREMISES TO HOLD VARIOUS SOCIAL AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. AS SUCH, THE SOCIETY DOES NOT NEED A PLACE BY WAY OF LAND AND BU ILDING. THIS SUBMISSION WAS ALSO MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. AS REGARDS POINT NO.( IV) THAT MOST OF THE MEMBERS AND OFFICE BEARERS ARE FROM CHA DHA FAMILY AND ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER, IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT FOUNDER MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY ARE DESCENDANTS OF B HAI MANSA SINGH JI. THOUGH THEY ALL HAVE THEIR SURNAM ES AS CHADHA BUT THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO EACH OTHER CLOSE LY. REGARDING POINT NO.(V) THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR DONATION WAS PRODUCED. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE 6 REPLY FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX, WHICH WAS QUOTED AT PAGE 6 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHEREBY IT HAS SPECIFIC ALLY BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF THE SAM E WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . THE LAST REASON GIVEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION WAS THAT THE ONE OF TH E AMENDED OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY SHOWS THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS THE FURTHERANCE OF THE CAUSE OF A PARTICULAR SECT O R BIRADARI OF BHAI MANSA SINGH JI. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED T O PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREBY SAID AMENDED OBJECT WAS QUOT ED, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 'TO RUN THE SOCIETY FOR BENEFIT OF POOR & GENERAL PUBLIC AT LARGE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL AID, EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, SCHOLARSHIPS, SPORTS, BLOOD DONATION CAMPS, OTHER FACILITIES & ACTIVITIES ON THE TEACHIN GS OF BHAI MANSA SINGH JI'. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE OBJEC TS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY ARE FOR FURTHERANCE OF CHARITY TO ANY SPECIFIC SECT OR BIRA DARI. IN VIEW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MAY BE SET ASID E. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. HE DISTINGUISH ED THE CASE OF SUCHINTA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS IN THAT CAS E, IT WAS ONLY THE FIRST YEAR OF THE WORKING OF THE SOCIETY, WHICH IS NOT 7 THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. FURTHER, HE STA TED THAT NOWHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECO RD THE TEACHINGS OF BHAI MANSA SINGH JI ON THE BASIS OF WH ICH THE SOCIETY WAS CREATED. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDG MENT OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SH RI DHAKAD SAMAJ DHARAMSHALA BHAWAN TRUST VS. CIT (200 8) 302 ITR 321 (MP). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSA L OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RU NNING INTO EIGHT PAGES, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD REJECTED THE APPLIC ATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ON THE BA SIS OF SIX OBJECTIONS RAISED BY HIM AS REPRODUCED EARLIER IN T HIS ORDER. AS REGARDS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY, IT IS TRI TE LAW THAT WHILE GRANTING THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS TO SEE THE OBJEC TS OF THE SOCIETY BEING CHARITABLE AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS O F THE ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO ANY ACTIVITY THAT DOES NOT STOP THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO GIVE REGISTRATION IF THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCI ETY ARE CHARITABLE. RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SUCHINTA EDUCATIONAL SOCIE TY (SUPRA) IS NOT OUT OF PLACE IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AS A PRE -CONDITION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA DEALS WITH THE EXIS TING ACTIVITIES OR THE ACTIVITIES, WHICH ARE TO BE TAKEN IN FUTURE. I F THE ASSESSEE 8 DOES NOT SATISFY THE TEST OF GENUINENESS OF ACTIVIT IES AT ANY SUBSEQUENT STAGE, THE REGISTRATION ITSELF CAN BE CA NCELLED IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT . THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PRE-JUDGED ONLY FOR THE REASON THE ACTIVI TIES HAVING NOT BEEN UNDERTAKEN. THIS VIEW ALSO GETS STRENGTH EN BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. FOUNDATION OF OPTHALMIC AND OPTOMETRY RESEARCH EDUCATION CENTRE (2012) 254 CTR 133 (DEL) WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE CONC ERNED COMMISSIONER IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE QUESTIO N WHETHER THE TRUST HAS ACTUALLY COMMENCED AND CARRIED ON ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. SIMILAR PROPOSITION WAS H ELD BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (E XEMPTION) VS. MEENAKSHI AMMA ENDOWMENT TRUST (2011) 50 DTR 24 3 (KAR.) 9. AS REGARDS THE QUESTION OF BUILDING AND MEMBERS/OFFICE BEARERS BEING FROM SAME FAMILY, THE ISSUES WERE CLARIFIED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AN D WERE ALSO REITERATED BEFORE US. FURTHER, THESE ISSUES ARE ALSO NOT RELEVANT AT THIS STAGE. THE EVIDENCES RECEIVING DO NATION WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . 10. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION SEEMS T O BE THE POINT NO.(VI) RAISED BY HIM. AS PER THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE AMENDED OBJECT, AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, WAS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF SECTION 13(1 )(B) OF THE 9 ACT. HOWEVER, WHILE GOING THROUGH THE SAID AMENDED OBJECTS WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE OBJECTS WERE CONFINED TOWAR DS ANY PARTICULAR SECT OR BIRADARI. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE SOCIETY HAD TO WORK FOR THE BENEFIT OF POO R AND GENERAL PUBLIC AT LARGE AND THESE ACTIVITIES ARE TO BE BASED IN CONSONANCE WITH THE TEACHINGS OF BHAI MANSA SINGH J I. IT IS NOT A CASE THAT THE CHARITY HAS TO BE DONE FOR THE FOLLOWERS OF BHAI MANSA SINGH JI ONLY. FURTHER IN OUR OPINION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) OF THE ACT CAN BE IN VOKED ONLY AT THE TIME OF MAKING ASSESSMENT OF THE ENTITY REGISTE RED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. AT THE STAGE OF GRANTING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX SHOULD NOT GET CARRIED AWAY BY THE PROVI SIONS OF THIS SECTION. 11. AT THE TIME OF GRANTING REGISTRATION, THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS TO CONFINE HIMSELF TO THE TWIN CONDITIONS FOR REGISTRATION I.E. THE OBJECTS O F THE TRUST BEING CHARITABLE AND THE ACTIVITIES BEING GENUINE. IT IS NOT THE STAGE IN WHICH THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX SHOULD BE COMMENTING ON THE TAXABILITY OF THE ASSES SEE. THAT STAGE COMES LATER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOWHERE IN THE WHOLE ORDER THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS BEEN ABLE TO COMMEN T ON THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY BEING NOT CHARITABLE. ON PERUSAL OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE SOCIETY EVEN, WE DO NOT FIND ANY OF ITS OBJECTS BEING NOT CHARITABLE. NONE OF THE ACTIVIT IES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT GENUINE ALSO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDING, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX 10 CANNOT REJECT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR VIEW GETS STRENGTHENED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURYA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST (2011) 203 TAXMAN 53 , WHEREBY THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVES AS UNDER : AS PER S. 12AA, AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST AND INSTITUTION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH INSTITUTION. THE PROCEDURE FO R REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS PRESCRI BED UNDER S. 12AA. IN TERMS OF CL. (A) OF S.12AA, THE C IT IS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ON SUCT INQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY. SUB-SS. (1A) AND (2) OF S. 12AA, AR E PROCEDURAL IN NATURE, WHEREAS SUB-S. (3) OF S. 12AA , EMPOWERS THE CIT TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT GEN UINE OR ARE NOT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJEC TS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. THEREFORE, THE OBJECT OF S. 12AA, IS TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, BUT NOT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, THE STAGE FOR APPLICATION OF INCOME IS YET TO ARRIVE I.E. WHEN SU CT TRUST OR INSTITUTION FILES ITS RETURN. IN ANOTHER LATER JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT, RELYING ON THE ABOVE STATED JUDGMENT, I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.K.K. MEMORIAL TRUST (2013) 256 CTR 424 , THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVES AS UNDER : THE TRUST WAS CREATED ON 23.6.2010 AND APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12A(1) (AA) OF THE ACT WAS MOVED ON 19.7.20 10 AND THE SAME WAS REJECTED ON 26.11.2010. THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE CREATION 11 OF THE TRUST AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE TRU ST OR THE INSTITUTION SHOULD HAVE STARTED ALL ITS ENVISAGED ACTIV ITIES IN THE FIRST YEAR ITSELF. UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT SA TISFACTION REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRU ST IS TO BE SEEN AND THE STAGE FOR APPLICATION OF INCOME IS YET TO ARRIVE I.E. WHEN SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FILES ITS RETURN. THUS THE CONTENTION THAT TRUST WAS NOT SET UP FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND IT WAS UTILIZING ITS INCOME NOT FOR THE SAID PURPOSE CANNOT BE EXAMINED AT THIS STAGE AS ONLY OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HAD TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER. THE TRUST WAS IN NASCE NT STAGE AND WAS YET TO WORK TOWARDS ITS OBJECTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE SEE THAT THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOWHERE QUESTIONED THE CHARITABLE C HARACTER OF THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY, NOR HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REJECTING THE APPLICATI ON FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT IS HEREB Y SET ASIDE AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS DIRE CTED TO ALLOW THE REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20 TH AUGUST, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH FIT FOR PUBLICATION SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACOUNTANT MEMBER 12