Deepak Society, Kolhapur V. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Exemption), Pune

ITA 1316/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3826 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS ARATI VISSANJI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 80G; 12AA; 22; 10(23C); 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 1316 /PUN/201 9 DEEPAK SOCIETY KOLHAPUR, C/O HOLY CROSS CONVENT HIGH SCHOOL, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, KOLHAPUR 416003 PAN : AAATD0981F ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. CIT ( EXEMPTION ) , PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MRS. ARATI VISSANJI REVENUE BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG / DATE OF HEARING : 01 - 03 - 2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 - 0 3 - 2021 / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28 - 06 - 2019 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), PUNE [CIT( E XEMPTION )] . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT( EXEMPTION) JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE 2 ITA NO . 1316/PUN/2019 ACT HOLDING THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CLAIM ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E - FILED FORM 10A SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT ON 18 - 12 - 2018. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FURNISH INFORMATION/ CLARIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING EXISTENCE AND GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES AND UT ILIZATION OF TRUST FUND TOWARDS ITS OBJECTS , IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE UPLOADED ITS SUBMISSIONS ON ITBA PORTAL. ON AN EXAMINATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, THE CIT(EXEMPTION) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS HUGE SURPLUS IN LAST THREE ASSESSMENT YE ARS I.E. (A.YS. 2016 - 17, 2017 - 18 AND 2018 - 19) AND NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED REGARDING THE STATUS OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE SAID RESPECTIVE YEARS , NO INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT DETAILS OR INDIVIDUAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT REGARDI NG SURPLUS FROM PRE - PRIMARY AND PRIMARY SCHOOL INCOME FILED. THE CIT(EXEMPTION) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM ITO (E), WARD, KOLHAPUR REGARDING THE STATUS OF RETURNS FILED FOR A.YS. 2014 - 15 TO 2018 - 19. THE CIT(EXEMPTION) CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL REMAND REPORT OF ITO AND OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ENGAGED IN THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND THE TRUST FAILED TO ESTABLISH CHARITABLE NATURE OF EDUCATION IN VIEW OF THE EXCESS GENERAT ION HUGE SURPLUS FROM THE SCHOOL FEE S AND THE ASSESSEE MADE FALSE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11(1) OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(EXEMPTION), NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 3 ITA NO . 1316/PUN/2019 5. THE LD. AR, MRS. ARATI VISSANJI SUBMITS THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED ON 21 - 01 - 1974 UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AS WELL AS UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950 ON 02 - 02 - 1974. THE ASSESSEE RUNS HOLY CROSS CONVENT SCHOOL COMPRISING OF THE PRE - PRIMARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DIVISIONS EXCLUSIVELY FOR GIRLS FROM 26 - 10 - 1963 ONWARDS. THE ASSESSEE ENJOYED EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT FROM A.Y. 1974 - 75 TILL 1999 - 2000. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR CONTINUATION OF REGISTRATION VIDE LETTER DATED 16 - 04 - 1999 AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE SA ID APPLICATION FROM THE RESPONDENT - REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE FROM A.Y. 2000 - 01 ONWARDS CONTINUED TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME EACH YEAR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 11 UNDER THE PRESUMPTION THE ASSESSEE S REGISTRATION IS GRANTED FROM 16 - 04 - 1999 AND RESPONDENT - REVE NUE ACCEPTED SUCH RETURNS OF INCOME. FURTHER, SHE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GRANTED CERTIFICATE U/S. 80G FROM 06 - 02 - 2004 AND THE LAST BEING ON 04 - 09 - 2009 AND WHICH IS IN FORCE TILL DATE BY VIRTUE OF CBDT CIRCLE NO. 7/2010 DATED 27 - 10 - 2009 . 6. REGARDING SURPLUS, SHE SUBMITS THAT THE ONLY ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING THE HOLY CROSS CONVENT SCHOOL FOR GIRLS AND IT DOES NOT CARRY ON ANY OTHER ACTIVITY NOR IS IT PERMITTED TO DO SO BY ITS OBJECTS. FOR A.Y. 2014 - 15 THERE IS A DEFICIT IN THE SE CONDARY SECTION AND SURPLUS IN THE PRE - PRIMARY AND PRIMARY SECTION HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND NO FEES ARE CHARGED IN THE SECONDARY SECTION WHICH RECEIVES GRANTS FROM THE MAHARASHTRA STATE EDUCATION BOARD. SURPLUS GENERATED BY AN ED UCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO ITS CHARITABLE NATURE, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS THAT THE ONLY ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS EDUCATION AND SURPLUS/DEFICIT IS THE RESULT OF SUCH ACTIVITY. 4 ITA NO . 1316/PUN/2019 SHE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITS THAT TH E SUCH SURPLUS HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE OBJECT AND/OR ACCUMULATED FOR FUTURE UTILIZATION. SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPORTED IN 372 ITR 699 (SC). SHE SUBMITS THAT THE SURPLUS DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD TO EXIST FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PROFIT SURPLUS . THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF ST. PETERS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPORTED IN 385 ITR 66 (SC). SHE ARGUED THAT THE DENIAL OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CHARITABLE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND CONCLUSION OF CIT(EXEMPTION) HAS NO BASE IN THIS REGARD. SHE REFERRED TO PARA 11 IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) AND RATIO LAID DOWN BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND AND SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT AND SHE PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(EXEMPTION). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR, SHRI DEEPAK GARG SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE GENERATED HUGE SURPLUS FOR F.YS. 2015 - 16, 2016 - 17 AND 2017 - 18 WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY THE CIT(EXEMPTION) AND NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ACCOUNTS, HELD THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND REJECTED REGISTR ATION SOUGHT U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO NOT FILED DETAILS OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT DETAILS OR INDIVIDUAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF PRE - PRIMARY AND PRIMARY SCHOOL FROM WHICH SURPLUS ARE GENERATED AND THE CIT(EXEMPTION) RIGHTLY HELD TH E ASSESSEES TRUST CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ENGAGED IN THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES FOR 5 ITA NO . 1316/PUN/2019 CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH CHARITABLE NATURE OF EDUCATION WHEN THE EXCESS IS GENERATED FROM THE SCHOOL FEES. 8. FURTHER, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAVING NO REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT AND MADE FALSE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11(1) OF THE ACT. REGARDING THE UTILIZATION OF SURPLUS RAISED FROM PRE - PRIMARY AND PRIMARY SCHOOL NO DETAILS FILED TO SHOW THAT SUCH SURPLUS HAS BEEN UTILIZED IN SE CONDARY DIVISION OF ASSESSEES SCHOOL. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THAT THE CIT(EXEMPTION) SOUGH THE ACTUAL REPORT FROM THE AO AND ON EXAMINATION OF SUCH REPORT IN DETAIL RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT AS ITS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE IN VIEW OF EXCESS GENERATION OF FUNDS. 9. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 490. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RUNS HOLY CROSS CONVENT SCHOOL EXCLUSIVELY FOR GIRLS WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED ON 26 - 10 - 1963. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY REGISTERED IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF DEEPAK SOCIETY, KOLHAP UR ON 21 - 01 - 1974 UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AND ALSO UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRIST ACT, 1950 ON 02 - 02 - 1974. THE ASSESSEES INSTITUTION HAS THREE DIVISIONS I.E. PRE - PRIMARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY. THE SECONDARY SECTION OF THE SCHOOL PROVID ES FREE EDUCATION AND ALSO RECEIVES GRANT FROM THE MAHARASHTRA STATE EDUCATION BOARD WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 276, 297, 336, 373 AND 412 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT FROM A.Y. 1974 - 75 TILL 1999 - 20 00 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN VIEW OF OMISSION OF SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR CONTINUATION OF REGISTRATION VIDE LETTER DATED 6 ITA NO . 1316/PUN/2019 16 - 04 - 1999 AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THIS APPLICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE , BUT HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME EACH YEAR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 11 FROM A.Y. 2000 - 01 ONWARDS. WE FIND THAT THE SAID RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 2000 - 01 ONWARDS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE RESPONDENT - REVENUE AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO GRANTED CERTIFICATE U/S. 80G FROM 06 - 02 - 2004 TILL 31 - 03 - 2012 EVIDENCING THE SAME RELEVANT MATERIAL ARE PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE NOS. 22 TO 24 OF THE PAPER B OOK. IT WAS EXPLAINED THE SAME IS BEING CONTINUED IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 7/2010 DATED 27 - 10 - 2009 WHICH STATES THAT ONCE A CASE WAS RENEWED, IT CONTINUES TO BE VALID IN PERPETUITY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY WITHDRAWN. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THE ASSESSE E WAS ENJOY ING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT FROM A.Y. 2000 - 01 ONWARDS AND GRANTING OF CERTIFICATE U/S. 80G FROM 01 - 04 - 2012 ONWARDS TILL DATE. THE CIT(EXEMPTION) DID NOT DISPUTE THE SAME. WE NOTE THAT THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE H AVE ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE RESPONDENT - REVENUE. THE CONTENTION OF REVENUE IS THAT NO ASSESSMENT FROM A.YS. 2014 - 15 TO 2018 - 19 SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND SINCE THE CIT(EXEMPTION) FOUND DURING THE PROCESS OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE AC T REOPENED THE ASSESSMENTS FROM A.YS. 2014 - 15 TO 2018 - 19. WE NOTE THAT THE AO FILED ITS FACTUAL REPORT IN RESPONSE TO DIRECTION OF CIT(EXEMPTION) WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PAGE NOS. 3 AND 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE RESPONDENT - REVENU E ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S. 11 OF THE ACT PRIOR TO A.Y. 2016 - 17. THEREFORE, NO DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT TREATING THE ASSESSEE HAVING GOT REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT AND U/S. 80G OF THE ACT. 7 ITA NO . 1316/PUN/2019 10. COMING TO THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA), THE BRIEF FACTS THEREIN ARE THAT THE QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ESTABLISHED WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF IMPARTING EDUCATION. THE SAID SOCIETY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.YS . 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02 SHOWING A NET SURPLUS OF RS.6,58,862/ - AND RS.7,82,632/ - , RESPECTIVEL Y AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT. THE AO REJECTED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN AS IT SHOWN SURPLUS. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOW ED EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. THE ITAT, DELHI BENCHES DISMISSED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IN A REFERENCE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITAT AND AFFIRMED THE ORDER O F THE A O. THAT ALL THE DISPUTES REACHED HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) AND ALSO IN BATCH OF OTHER CASES ON SIMILAR ISSUE FROM HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS PLEASED TO HOLD W HERE AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION CARRIES ON THE ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION PRIMARILY FOR EDUCATING PERSONS, THE FACT THAT IT MAKES A SURPLUS DOES NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT CEASES TO EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND BECOMES AN INSTITUTION FOR TH E PUR POSE OF MAKING PROFIT (VIDE PARA 11). FURTHER, BY REFERRING THE DECISION OF CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION REPORTED IN 121 ITR 1 HELD IT HAS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT MERELY BECAUSE PROFITS HAVE RE SULTED FROM THE ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION WOULD NOT RESULT IN CHANGE OF CHARACTER OF THE INSTITUTION THAT IT EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FURTHER SUGGESTED TO HAVE TEST OF PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ACTIVITY HAS TO BE APPLIED BY POSING THE QUESTION WHETHER IT EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATION AND NOT TO EARN PROFIT TO DECIDE THE ENTITLEMENT OF AN INSTITUTION 8 ITA NO . 1316/PUN/2019 FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT. THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE HONBLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF QU EENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASES FALL WITHIN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL IS HELD TO BE CORRECT LAW . THE ABOVE SAID PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ST. PETERS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT PORTION OF IN THE SAID CASE ARE AS UNDER : 3. WE MAY RECORD AT THIS STAGE THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG VAR IOUS HIGH COURTS ON THE AFORESAID ISSUE. WHILE SUMMARIZING THE LAW, THIS COURT APPROVED THE JUDGMENTS OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, DELHI AND BOMBAY HIGH COURTS AND REVERSED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT. INSOFAR AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE P UNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IS CONCERNED, IT WAS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA (2010) 327 ITR 73. THE RELEVANT PARA IN THIS BEHALF WHICH ALSO STATES AS TO HOW SUCH CASES ARE TO BE DEALT WITH READS AS UNDER : 25. WE APPROVE THE JUDGMENTS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA, DELHI AND BOMBAY HIGH COURTS. SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT AND SINCE THE CHIEF CITS ORDERS CANCELLING EXEMPTION WHICH WERE SET ASIDE BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYAN A HIGH COURT WERE PASSED ALMOST SOLELY UPON THE LAW DECLARED BY THE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, ITIS CLEAR THAT THESE ORDERS CANNOT STAND. CONSEQUENTLY, REVENUES APPEALS FROM THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT DATED 29.1.2010 AND THE JUDGMENTS FOLLO WING IT ARE DISMISSED. WE REITERATE THAT THE CORRECT TESTS WHICH HAVE BEEN CULLED OUT IN THE THREE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS STATED ABOVE, NAMELY, SURAT ART SILK CLOTH, ADITANAR, AND AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING, WOULD ALL APPLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN EDUCATI ONAL INSTITUTION EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT. IN ADDITION, WE HASTEN TO ADD THAT THE 13TH PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C) IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN THAT ASSESSING AUTHORITIES MUST CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR FROM ASSESSMENT YE AR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR WHETHER SUCH INSTITUTIONS CONTINUE TO APPLY THEIR INCOME AND INVEST OR DEPOSIT THEIR FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW LAID DOWN. FURTHER, IT IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS BE LOOKED AT CAREFULLY. IF TH EY ARE NOT GENUINE, OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OR ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO WHICH APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN, SUCH APPROVAL AND EXEMPTION MUST FORTHWITH BE WITHDRAWN. ALL THESE CASES ARE DISPOSED OF MAKING IT CLEAR THAT REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS FRESH ORDERS IF SUCH NECESSITY IS FELT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN SECTION 10(23C) READ WITH SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. IN ALL THOSE APPEALS WHICH HAVE COME FROM THE HIGH COU RT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX EXCEPT ONE FROM GUJARAT HIGH COURT, THE HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED ITS AFORESAID JUDGMENT IN PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST. SINCE THIS VIEW STANDS APPROVED, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DI SMISSED. 9 ITA NO . 1316/PUN/2019 11. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ST. PETERS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR GRANT O F REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION AND CIT(EXEMPTION) IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD MARCH, 2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 03 RD MARCH, 2021. RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT( EXEMPTION), PUNE 4 . , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 5 . / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT , PUNE