The ITO, Ward-3, Anand V. Gujarat Environment Service Society, Anand

ITA 1233/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8271 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNANI
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH SMC, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1233 AND 2520/AHD/2015 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2010-2011 AND 2011-12 ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD BARODA BARODA. VS GUJARAT ENVIRONMENT SERVICE SOCIETY KAIRA CAN OFFICE BUILDING 1 ST FLOOR, NR.GANESH CHAR RASTA ANAND 388 001. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SANTOSH KARNANI, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 12/10/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/10/2017 !'/ O R D E R PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE O F REVENUE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A)-2, VADODARA DATED 26.2 .2015 AND 13.5.2015 PASSED FOR ASSTT.YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 RESPECTI VELY. 2. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11 AND THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011- 12. HOWEVER, ITS GRIEVANCE IN BOTH YEARS REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE IS SUE VIZ. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1)(A ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OR NOT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME 24.9.2010 AND 23.9.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT N IL IN THE ASSTT.YEARS ITA NO.1233 AND 2520/AHD/2015 2 2010-11 AND 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1860. IT WAS GRANTED REG ISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12(A)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W.E.F. 1.6.1984. MA IN OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY IN ITS FINDING RECORDED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11. I WILL BE REVE RTING TO THAT FINDING IN THE LATER PART OF THIS ORDER, BUT IT IS PERTINENT TO ME NTION THAT ALL ALONG IN THE PAST THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AO HAS DENIED THIS BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH PR OVIDES DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE. ACCORDING TO THE AO A PROVISO WAS INSERTED IN SECTION 2(15) BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT (2) 2009. THE AO WAS O F THE OPINION THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF BUSI NESS, AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF TH E ACT. HE ASSESSED TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11 AT RS.43,07,960/- AND RS.41,32,020/- IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. 4. THE ORDER PASSED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11 HAS B EEN FOLLOWED IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12 BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISPARITY ON FACTS. 5. I HAVE HEARD LD.REPRESENTATIVES AND PERUSED RECO RDS. I FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MADE A LUCID ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AN D LAW, THEREFORE, I DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF FINDING RECORDED BY THE L D.CIT(A) IN THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010-11, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO'S OBSERVATIONS AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. FROM TH E SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN TH AT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY WAS ESTABLISHED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF SEVER AL INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH FOLLOWING MAIN OBJECTIVES: TO FULFILL THE MAIN OBJECT OF PRESERVATION OF ENVIR ONMENT THE SOCIETY UNDERTAKES VARIOUS ACTIVITIES, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO.1233 AND 2520/AHD/2015 3 TO UNDERTAKE ACTIVITIES NECESSARY FOR PROVIDIN G THE DEAN ENVIRONMENT TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE AND TO INCREASE T HE FACILITIES TO HAVE BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND TO GIVE NECESSARY GUIDANCE A ND ASSISTANCE TO THE MEMBERS AND OTHERS TO CARRY OUT THESE ACTIVITIE S. TO UNDERTAKE PROGRAMS IN ENVIRONMENTAL EXTENSI ON AIMED AT IMPROVING THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE. TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE TESTING OF THE WAT ER, AIR, SEWAGE ETC. TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO ITS MEMBERS AND OTHERS FOR PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR TREE PLANTATION ETC. TO PROVIDE SANITATION AND OTHER SERVICES FOR T HE MAINTENANCE OF CLEAN ENVIRONMENT. TO PROVIDE HORTICULTURAL SERVICES FOR PUTTING THE LAWNS, ORNAMENTAL PLANTS AND THEIR MAINTENANCE. TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AND STUDY OF WATER, SEWAGE , AIR AND ECOLOGICAL BALANCES, CONTRIBUTE TO ITS FUNDS AND RAISE FUNDS F OR THE SAME. TO PROVIDE TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES F OR THE STUDY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ITS PROTECTION. TO MAINTAIN NURSERIES AND ORCHARDS. IN THIS REGARD IT IS STATED THAT THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT O F THE ORGANIZATION PREMISES AND IMPROVING THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE. HE NCE THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST IS WITHIN THE PER VIEW OF SEC TION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961.' 4.3.1. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND IT HAS BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(A). BUT, IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS DE NIED THIS DEDUCTION BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTS DOES NOT INVOLVE RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF AND PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING WATER SHEDS, FORESTS AND WILD LIFE. THE A O HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES/SERVICES ARE RENDERED FO R THE ADVANCEMENT OF OTHER OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC FOR WHICH IT HAS CH ARGING FEES. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISS UED BY THE JCIT, ANAND RANGE THAT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY VARIOU S COMPANIES OR INSTITUTIONS AS BANAS DAIRY, GCMMF, IRMA, MOTHER DA IRY ETC. WHO SPENDS FOR THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT SUCH AS GARDENS AND THE APPELLANT IS SIMPLY A CONTRACTOR AN D HAS TO CARRY OUT THE WORK AS SPECIFIED AND AGREED TO MAINTAIN WITH T HE COMPANIES OR INSTITUTES. HENCE, THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO.1233 AND 2520/AHD/2015 4 4.3.2. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS BEEN ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 11(1)(A) FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS AND T HE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES O F THE APPELLANT IN THE YEARS PRECEDING THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY ARE FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT AND UNDER S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE SECTIO N 2(15) RELATING TO THE RECEIPT OF FEES ETC. FOR CARRYING OUT THE ACTIV ITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO HAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES ARE NO LONGER CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE ONLY OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE COMPANIES WHO ARE MAKING THE PAYMENTS FOR MAINTENAN CE OF GARDEN ETC. ARE DOING JOB OF PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT A ND THE APPELLANT IS SIMPLY A CONTRACTOR FOR THIS PURPOSE. 4.3.3. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 47 TAXMAN.COM 162 (GUJ) HAS HELD THAT DULY INSERTED PROVISO OF SECTION 2(15) WILL AP PLY TO INSTITUTION WHOSE PURPOSE IS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT, WILL NOT APPLY TO INSTITUTIONS ENGAGE D IN ACTIVITIES IN NATURE OF RELIEF TO POOR, EDUCATION OR MEDICAL RELIEF. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE COURT HAS REFERRED TO CIRCULAR NO. 11/2008 DATED 19 /12/2008. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THIS CIRCULAR, PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT WAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY I NCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION U/S 2(15). HENCE, EVIDENTLY, THE NEWLY I NSERTED PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WILL ALSO NOT APPLY TO THE INSTITUTIO NS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF PRESERVATION OF ENVIRON MENT. MOREOVER, IN THIS DECISION, THE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT ALL THRO UGHOUT THE PREVIOUS YEARS, RIGHT FROM AYS 1995-96 TILL 2008-09, REVENUE HAS CONSIDERED ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY A ND HAS GRANTED BENEFIT U/S 11. IN THE CURRENT CASE ALSO, THE REVENUE HAS C ONSIDERED THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY FOR PREVIOUS YEARS AND HAVE GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S 11. NOW FROM AY 2009-10, THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT TRUST ARE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE RE LATING TO PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS RELATING T O ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS NO WHERE MENTIONED IN HIS ORD ER THAT THE EXEMPTION GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT BY CIT AS BEEN C ANCELLED AT THE TIME OR BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION MENTIONED ABOVE HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : '5. TERM 'CHARITABLE TRUST' IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES THE RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCATION, M EDICAL RELIEF, ITA NO.1233 AND 2520/AHD/2015 5 PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT; INCLUDING WATER SHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE AND PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OR PLACES OR OBJECTIONS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST AND ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. PROVISO TO SECTIO N 2(15) AND FURTHER PROVISO WHEREOF INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 201 0 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL 2000 READ, THUS - 'PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, I F IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL NOT A PPLY IF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO THEREIN IS TWENTY FIVE LAKH RUPEES OR LESS IN THE P REVIOUS YEAR.' 6. THE LEGAL CONTROVERSY IN THE PRESENT TAX APPEAL CENTERS AROUND THE FIRST PROVISO. IN THE PLAIN TERMS, THE P ROVISO PROVIDES FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE DEFINITIO N OF THE TERM 'CHARITABLE PURPOSES' AND APPLIES ONLY TO CASES OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IF T HE CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISO ARE SATISFIED, ANY ENTIT Y, EVEN IF INVOLVED IN ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENE RAL PUBLIC UTILITY BY VIRTUE TO PROVISO, WOULD BE EXCLUDED FRO M THE DEFINITION OF 'CHARITABLE TRUST'. HOWEVER, FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISO, WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THE ENTITY SHOULD BE INVO LVED IN CARRYING ON ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR B USINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING SERVICES IN RELATION TO ANY T RADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDER ATION. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE NATURE, USE OR APPLICATION, OR RET ENTION OF INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT. UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF APPLICATIO N OF PROVISO ARE THAT THE ENTITY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES OF ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR F EE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. SUCH STATUTORY AMENDMENT WAS E XPLAINED BY THE FINANCE MINISTER'S SPEECH IN THE PARLIAMENT. RE LEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'I ONCE AGAIN ASSURE THE HOUSE THAT GENUINE CHARITA BLE ORGANIZATIONS WILL NOT IN ANY WAY BE AFFECTED. THE CBDT WILL, ITA NO.1233 AND 2520/AHD/2015 6 FOLLOWING THE USUAL PRACTICE, ISSUE AN EXPLANATORY CIRCULAR CONTAINING GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE E NTITY IS CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, CO MMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE I N RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. WHETHER THE PURPOS E IS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE WILL DEPEND ON THE TOTALITY OF T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. ORDINARILY, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS RENDERING SERVICES TO THEIR MEMBERS W OULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE AMENDMENT AND THEIR ACTIVITIES WOUL D CONTINUE TO BE REGARDED AS 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY.' 4.3.4. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE ITAT MUMBA I BENCH IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF NEW SAIBABA NAGAR WELFARE S OCIETY 25 TAXMAN.COM 226 (MUM) HAS HELD THAT ACTIVITY OF MAIN TENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PARK COULD FALL WITHIN WORDS, 'PRESE RVATION OF ENVIRONMENT' U/S 2(15). THUS, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT TRUST ARE IN THE NATURE OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AS DEFINED U/S 2(15) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. MOREOVER, ON ACCOUNT OF SIMILAR ACTIVITIES, T HE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S 11(1)(A) IN PRECEDING YE ARS AND AS ON THE DATE OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE REGISTRATI ON GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TRUST U/S 12A WAS STILL IN FORCE. HENCE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S 11(1)(A) TO THE APPELLANT AS CL AIMED BY IT. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 6. BEFORE EMBARKING UPON AN INQUIRY ON THE VIEW POI NT OF THE AO AS TO WHETHER HE FAILED TO CONSTRUE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESS EE AS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE OR NOT, I DEEM IT PERTINENT TO TAKE NOTE OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. IT READS AS UNDER: 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION, [YOGA,] MEDICAL RELIEF, [PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING WATERSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE) AND PRESERVATION OF MONUMENT S OR PLACES OR OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST,] AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY: [ PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT IN VOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO AN Y TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDE RATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLIC ATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY, UNLESS ITA NO.1233 AND 2520/AHD/2015 7 (I) SUCH ACTIVITY IS UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF ACTUAL CARRYING OUT OF SUCH ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENE RAL PUBLIC UTILITY; AND (II) THE AGGREGATE RECEIPTS FROM SUCH ACTIVITY OR ACTIVITIES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, DO NOT EXCEED TWENTY PER CENT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS, OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDERTAKING S UCH ACTIVITY OR ACTIVITIES, OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR;]] 7. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT A BARE PERUSAL OF THIS CLAUSE WOULD INDICATE THAT THE PROVISO IS APPLICABLE ON THE EXPRESSION ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT INCLUDING WA TERSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE ETC. THIS ACTIVITY IN ITSELF IS FOR CHARIT ABLE PURPOSES AND IT STANDS APART FROM ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PU BLIC UTILITY. THUS, THE PROVISO IS NOT APPLICABLE UPON ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 8. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE FINDING EXTRACTED (SUPRA). MAIN O BJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR PROVIDING CLEAN ENVIRONMENT TO THE SOCIETY, MAI NTENANCE OF GARDEN, PLANTATION, HORTICULTURE ETC. THESE OBJECTS AND AC TIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE IN THE NATURE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE, AND AS SUCH AC CEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PAST. EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST, AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED. THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN THE EXPRESSION AD VANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IT IS SPECIFICA LLY FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS C ONSIDERED BOTH THESE ASPECTS AND ACCEPTED EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT IT IS MEANT FOR PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT AS WELL AS ITS OBJECTS ARE OF CHARITABLE NATURE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PUT RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT SYST EM, 47 TAXMANN.COM ITA NO.1233 AND 2520/AHD/2015 8 162 (GUJ). AFTER CONSIDERING WELL REASONED ORDER O F THE LD.CIT(A) I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN IT. IT IS UPHELD. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER