Arulmigu Sri Kamatchi Amman Trust, Karaikudi V. ITO, Karaikudi

ITA 110/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4890 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH B : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO. 110/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A ARULMIGU SRI KAMATCHI AMMAN TRUST 498/43, KALAIYAPPA NAGAR KALANIVASAL KARAIKUDI 630 002 VS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD I(1) KARAIKUDI [PAN AACTA0227D ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B.SEKARAN, CIT O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-I, MADURAI, DATED 11.11.2010, VIDE W HICH HE HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON LY BECAUSE ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS RELIGIOUS A CTIVITY IN ADDITION TO CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, THE LD. CIT DOUBTED THE GEN UINENESS OF THE TRUST. HE ALSO FOUND THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT CARRYING OUT C HARITABLE ACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF THE TRUST DEED AS IT COULD NOT ESTABLISH T HE DOCUMENTARY ITA 110/11 :- 2 -: EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT REFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S 12AA TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. THE TRUST IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS WRONG, ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WENT WRONG IN HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE ERRED IN PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION WITH PRE-CONCEIVED NOTIONS. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ERRED IN OBSERVI NG THAT THE DONATION RECEIPTS AND LIST OF DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED WHEN IT IS NEITHER REQUIRED TO BE ENQUIRED INTO AT THE STAGE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION NOR WAS THERE AN Y DIRECTION TO PRODUCE THEM. HE FAILED TO NOTE THAT ALL DETAILS CALLED FOR WERE PRODUCED. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN IGNORING THE ASSURANCE OF FINANCE MINISTER IN THE PARLIAMENT, WHICH IS BINDING ON HIM AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN R&B FALCON(A) PTY. LTD. VS CIT, 3 01 ITR 309(SC) AND WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE BOARD CIRCULAR NO.11 OF 2008 DATED 19 TH DECEMBER 2008, WHEN BOTH THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES WERE CLEARLY CONSIS TENT WITH THE EXPLANATION OF LAW IN THE BOARD CIRCULAR WHICH WAS BINDING ON HIM UNDER SECTION 119 OF THE ACT. 5. IN ANY EVENT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX IS HYPER TECHNICAL AND SUPERFLUOUS. 6. THE APPLICATION IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED AND RE GISTRATION U/S 12A GRANTED. 3. THE LD. CIT FOUND THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST A RE BASICALLY CHARITABLE BUT IT ALSO HAS THE OBJECT TO CARRY OUT RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. THERE IS NO LONGER A PROVISION HAVING ADMIXTURE OF BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE OBJECTS. IN THIS REGARD, DECISIONS OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT ITA 110/11 :- 3 -: RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS UPPER GANGES SUGARM ILLS LTD, 227 ITR 578, AND THAT OF STATE OF KERALA VS M.P.SHANTIVERMA JAIN, 231 ITR 787, ARE RELEVANT. 4. AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW AS ON TODAY, TH E TRUST CAN HAVE BOTH KINDS OF OBJECTS I.E CHARITABLE AS WELL A S RELIGIOUS, TO GET REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE FI ND IT A FIT CASE FOR ALLOWING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE-T RUST. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.6.2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH JUNE, 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR