Manhattan Foundation, Hyd, Hyderabad V. CIT(Exemptions), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1353/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9766 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J.SIRI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY GANDHI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Set aside
• Section: 11; 12AA; 153

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1353/HYD/2015 : ASSESSMENT YEARS 2015- 16 MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD (PAN AAJCM 5940 K ) V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJAY GANDHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.SIRI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 21.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.6.2016 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD DATED 22.9.201 5, REFUSING REGISTRATION UNDER S.12AA AND GRANT OF APPROVAL UND ER S.80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WA S INCORPORATED ON 10.2.2015 UNDER S.7 OF THE COMPANIE S ACT, 2013 READ WITH RULE 8 OF THE COMPANIES (INCORPORATION) RULES, 2014, FOR PROMOTION OF CHARITABLE OBJECTS AS PER ITS MEMORAND UM OF ASSOCIATION(MOA). THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MADE APPLICA TIONS ON 23.3.2015 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EX EMPTION), IN PRESCRIBED FORM 10 FOR REGISTRATION UNDER S.12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 AND IN FORM NO.10G FOR APPROVAL UNDER S.80 G OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1353/HYD/2015 M/S. MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD 2 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), HOWE VER, REFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER S.12AA OF THE A CT. HE ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY DENIED THE APPROVAL SOUGHT UNDER S.8 0G(5) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT DISSOLUTION CLAUSE AS SPECIFIED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION (MOA) INDICATES THAT THERE IS NO INT ENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO TRANSFER THE ASSETS TO ANOTHER INS TITUTION REGISTERED UNDER S.12AA OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(EXEMPTION) ALSO OBSERVED THAT OBJECTS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAIN MENT OF THE MAIN OBJECTIVE ALSO INDICATE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY TO CARRY OUT ITS OBJECTS OUTSIDE INDIA, WHICH IS IN VIOLATIO N OF PROVISIONS OF S.11A(1)(A) OF THE ACT. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) IS UNDER THE ABOVE COMPANY, HAS FILED APPLICATIONS IN FORM NO.10A AND IN FORM NO.10G ON 23.03.2015, SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S .12AA & APPROVAL U/S.80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (REFER RED TO AS 'THE ACT' IN SHORT). THUS, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED VIDE LETT ER DATED 23.06.2015 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 27.07.2015 AND REQUE STING THE APPLICANT TO PRODUCE ITS ORIGINAL MEMORANDUM OF ASS OCIATION (MOA) FOR VERIFICATION AND TO FURNISH . DETAILED REPLY ON SPECIFIC POINTS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, SRI M. S. DAYAKAR, CA & A.R OF THE COMPANY APPEARED AND FILED INFORMATION. 2. VIDE QUERY NO.11 OF THIS OFFICE NOTICE DT.23-06- 201S, IT WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF AMENDMENT CLAUSE, DISSOLUTION CLAUSE OF THE MOA ALONG WITH A DETAILED NOTE THEREON. AS SEEN FROM TH E MOA, THE DISSOLUTION CLAUSE IS MENTIONED AS UNDER:- '13. IF UPON THE WINDING UP OR DISSOLUTION OF THE C OMPANY THERE REMAINS, AFTER SATISFACTION OF ALL ITS DEBTS AND LIABILITIES ANY PROPERTY WHATSOEVER THE SAME SHALL NOT BE PAID OR DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPAN Y BUT SHALL BE GIVEN OR TRANSFERRED OR TRANSFERRED TO SO ME OTHER INSTITUTION OR INSTITUTIONS HAVING OBJECTS. SIMILAR TO THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE MEMB ERS OF THE COMPANY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF DISSOLUTION AND IN DEFAULT ITA NO.1353/HYD/2015 M/S. MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD 3 THEREOF BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE THAT HAS OR MAY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER' 2.1 A PERUSAL OF THE SAID CLAUSE INDICATES THAT THE RE IS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE SOCIETY TO TRANSFER TH E ASSETS TO ANOTHER SOCIETY, WHICH IS ALSO HAVING REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. FURTHER, AS SEEN FROM THE OBJECTIVES INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE MAIN OBJECTS OF MOA, THE OBJE CTIVE CLAUSE (6) IS MENTIONED AS UNDER: 6. TO ASSIST ANY VIABLE ENTERPRISE OR VENTURES OF SELF HELP GROUPS WITH IN INDIA AND ABROAD TO RAISE FUNDS TO ATTAIN MAIN OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY. 3.1 A PERUSAL OF ABOVE CLAUSE INDICATES THAT THE IN TENTION OF THE COMPANY TO OPERATE ITS ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE INDIA, WH ICH IS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 4. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMPANY IS NOT FI T FOR GRANT REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE APPLIC ATION IN FORM ; NO.L0A FILED BY THE ABOVE COMPANY IS REJECTED. CONS EQUENTLY, THE OTHER APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10G FILED BY THE ASSES SEE COMPANY, SEEKING APPROVAL U/S 8OG(5) OF THE ACT IS ALSO REJE CTED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI AJAY GANDHI SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTION) REFUSED REGISTRATION UNDER S.12AA AN D DENIED APPROVAL UNDER S.80G ON TWO GROUNDS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) BASED ON THE DISSOLUTION CLAUSE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE RAJKOT BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF SMT. SULOCHANADEVI EDUCATION FOUNDATION(2013) 40 TAXMANN .COM.466) (RAJKOT-TRIB.), WHEREIN SIMILAR OBJECTION OF THE RE VENUE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER S.12AA BASED ON IDENTICAL DISSOL UTION CLAUSE WAS FOUND TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMST ANCES. AS FOR THE ITA NO.1353/HYD/2015 M/S. MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD 4 SECOND OBJECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( EXEMPTION) FOUNDED ON THE INCIDENTAL OBJECTS , WHICH ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER REVEALED THE ASSESSEES INTENTION TO CARRY OUT ITS ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE INDIA, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE ASSERTED THAT THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CRITICA L ART AND MEDIA PRACTICES V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIO N), MUMBAI (2015) 153 ITD 644 (MUM) AND HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN INTERNATIONAL BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE TRUST V/S. DIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. (2014) 42 TAXMANN. COM.330. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI SIR I KUMAR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION). 7. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATIONS TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. A B ARE READING OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(EXEMPTION) WOULD SHOW THAT THE OBJ ECTIONS OF THE CIT(EXEMPTION) TO THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER S.12AA AND APPROVAL UNDER S.80G ARE TWO FOLD. FIRSTLY, AS PER THE DISSOLUTION CLAUSE SPECIFIED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, EXTRACTED ABOVE, THERE IS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO TRANSFER THE ASSETS TO ANY OTHER SIMILAR INSTITUTIO N HAVING REGISTRATION UNDER S.12AA OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO RATIONALE IN TH IS OBJECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER. RELEVANT DISSOLUTION CLAUSE CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT SURPLUS ARISING ON DISSOLUTION, AFTER SATISFACTION OF ITS DEBTS AND LIABILITIES SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER INSTITUTI ONS PURSUING OBJECTS SIMILAR TO THE THOSE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE FAIL TO COMPREHEND ANY INFIRMITY IN SUCH CLAUSE. WE ALSO FIND THAT IDE NTICAL DISSOLUTION ITA NO.1353/HYD/2015 M/S. MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD 5 CLAUSE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE RAJKOT BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SMT.SULOCHANADEVI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIO N V/S. CIT JAMNAGAR (2013) 40 TAXMANN.COM.466(RAJKOT-TRIB)., W HEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION THAT THE REVE NUE HAS CLEARLY ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.12AA OF THE ACT TAKING SHELTER OF SUCH OBJECTION. RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE ARE AS FO LLOWS- 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, I HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN CLAUSE X OF MEM ORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ON PAGE 5 AND CLAUSE 52 OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION ON PAGE 10, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THE CONDITIONS OF WINDING- UP/DISSOLUTION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- IF UPON WINDING UP OR DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY T HERE REMAINS, AFTER SATISFACTION OF ALL THE DEBTS AND LI ABILITIES ANY PROPERTY WHATSOEVER THE SAME SHALL NOT BE DISTRIBUT ED AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY BUT SHALL BE GIV EN OR TRANSFER TO SUCH OTHER COMPANY HAVING OBJECT SIMILA R TO THE OBJECTS OF THIS COMPANY, TO BE DETERMINED BY THE ME MBERS OF THIS COMPANY AT OR BEFORE THE TIME RESOLUTION OR IN DEFAULT IN THEREOF, BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE THAT HAS O R MAY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER. THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY TO BE PURSUED ON IN CORPORATION ARE CONTAINED IN CLAUSE A(1) OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOC IATION, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT NO OBJECTS OF THE COM PANY SHALL BE CARRIED OUT ON COMMERCIAL BASIS. IN CLAUSE X OF ME MORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT UPON A W INDING UP OR DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY THERE REMAINS, AFTER THE SATISFACTION OF ALL THE DEBTS AND LIABILITIES, ANY PROPERTY WHATSOEVER THE SAME SHALL NOT BE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY B UT SHALL BE GIVEN OR TRANSFERRED TO SUCH OTHER COMPANY HAVING O BJECTS SIMILAR TO THE OBJECTS OF THIS COMPANY, TO BE DETERMINED BY TH E MEMBERS OF THIS COMPANY AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF DISSOLUTION OR IN DEFAULT THEREOF, BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE THAT HAS OR MAY ACQUIR E JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER. THIS WINDING UP / DISSOLUTION CLAUSE IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER THE ACT, THEREFORE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER CLEARLY ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. I, T HEREFORE, SET ASIDE ITA NO.1353/HYD/2015 M/S. MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD 6 THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , JAMNAGAR AND DIRECT HIM TO READ THE CLAUSE X OF MEMORANDUM O F ASSOCIATION ON PAGE 5 AND CLAUSE 52 OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION ON PAGE 10, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT IF UPON WINDING UP OR DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY THERE REMAINS, AFTER SATISFACTION OF AL L THE DEBTS AND LIABILITIES ANY PROPERTY WHATSOEVER THE SAME SHALL NOT BE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY BUT SHALL BE GIV EN OR TRANSFER TO SUCH OTHER COMPANY HAVING OBJECT SIMILAR TO THE OBJECTS OF THIS COMPANY. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROD UCE ORIGINAL MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE INSTI TUTION TO THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR WHO WILL VERIF Y THE OBJECT CLAUSE AND IF UPON VERIFICATION HE FOUND THAT THE O BJECT CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE AFORESAID WINDING UP OR DISSOLUTIO N CLAUSE, IN THAT EVENT HE WILL GRANT THE REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSE E-TRUST U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCAT IONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST AND ISSUANCE OF REGISTRATION U/S 1 2AA IS A PRIMARY CONDITION FOR THE START OF THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST, THEREFORE ITS CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON PRIORITY BASIS. I, TH EREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST TO SUO MOTU APPEAR BEFORE THE LD COM MISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, JAMNAGAR WITHIN 15 DAYS ON RECEIPT OF TH IS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE FROM THE RE VENUE DEPARTMENT AND SUBMIT THE ORIGINAL MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE INSTITUTION TO THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X, JAMNAGAR. THEN AFTER THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR S HALL PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW AS DEEMED FIT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE CIT(EXEMPTION) IS BASED ON THE READING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE INCIDENTAL O BJECTS AS PROVIDED FOR ATTAINMENT OF MAIN OBJECTS IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. AS PER CIT(EXEMPTION), THE INCIDENTAL OBJECTS INDICATE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE ITS ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE INDIA. THIS OBJECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR DENIAL OF REGISTRATION IS ALSO WIT HOUT ANY FORCE. WE NOTICE FROM THE RELEVANT INCIDENTAL CLAUSE RELIED U PON BY THE REVENUE THAT SUCH CLAUSE PRIMARILY ENABLES THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE FUNDS TO ATTAIN THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY. IT DOES NOT GIVE ANY IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL CARRY OUT ITS ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE INDIA. BE IT AS IT MAY, WE SIMULTANEOUSLY NOTICE THAT ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, THE DECISION OF THE ITA NO.1353/HYD/2015 M/S. MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD 7 COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CRI TICAL ART AND MEDIA PRACTICES (SUPRA) IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT REGISTRATION CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES ARE EXTENDED OUTSIDE INDIA. RELEVANT POR TION OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER- 13. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, IN O UR VIEW, THE SECOND GROUND ON WHICH THE REGISTRATION I S REJECTED NEEDS TO BE RELOOKED BY THE LD. DIT(E). IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE HOLD THAT IF THE ACTI VITIES OTHERWISE ARE CHARITABLE AND FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THE PROPERTY IS HELD WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY UNDER TRUST FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOU S PURPOSES AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, T HEN SUCH A TRUST SUBJECT TO THE FULFILMENT OF OTHER CON DITIONS AS LAID DOWN BY THE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT , WILL BE ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION AND IT CANNOT BE DENIED REGISTRATION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT ITS ACTIVITIE S ARE EXTENDED OUTSIDE INDIA. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING TH E INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE A CT, THE INCOME WHICH IS APPLIED ON SUCH AN ACTIVITIES IN IN DIA ONLY, WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(C) WHEREIN THE INCOME APPLIED OUTSIDE INDIA IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTIO N, IF THE ACTIVITIES TEND TO PROMOTE THE INTERNATIONAL WELFAR E IN WHICH INDIA IS INTERESTED AND THE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE BOARD FOR SUCH APPLICATION OF INCOME . HOWEVER, SO FAR AS THE SECOND GROUND ITA NO.736/M/2013 11 M/S. CRITICAL ART AND MEDIA PRACTI CES REGARDING THE SALARY RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEES IN EX CESS OF WHAT MAY BE REASONABLY PAID FOR SUCH SERVICES IS CONCERNED, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. DIT(E) FOR DECISION AFRESH AFTER GRANTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TRUST TO PRESENT ITS C ASE AND PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCES, IF ANY, IN THIS REGARD . WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BE NCH IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE TRUST (SUPRA ) ALSO SQUARELY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE P ARITY OF REASONING, ITA NO.1353/HYD/2015 M/S. MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD 8 WE FIND THAT THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET AS IDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (E XEMPTION) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTI ON TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER S.12AA AND APPROVAL UNDER S.80G AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) (PRADIP KUMAR KE D IA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/- 24 TH JUNE, 2016 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. MANHATTEN FOUNDATION, C/O. M/S. GANDHI & GANDHI, CH ARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 1002, PAIGAH PLAZA, BASHEERBAGH, HYDER ABAD 500 029 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(EXEMPTION) HYDERABAD 3 . INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION, WARD 2, HYDERABAD 4 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.