The Institute of Nursing Research and Development, Pune V. Commissioner of Income-tax - IV,

ITA 147/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88996 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 80G; 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.147/PN/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) THE INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, C/O R.B. CHAVAN, 1/12, LOKMANYA NAGAR, SHASTRI ROAD, PUNE - 411030 . APPELLANT PAN: AABTT0114D VS. CIT - IV, PUNE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.R. BHAGWAT RESPONDENT BY : SMT. M.S. VERMA, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 06-01-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-02-2015 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 27-11-2013 OF THE CIT-IV, PUNE REFUSING RENEWAL U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE THE INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT APPL IED FOR RENEWAL U/S.80G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT VIDE AN APPLI CATION WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CIT ON 08-05-2013 . THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH T HE SAID 2 APPLICATION. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUS T ARE STATED TO BE AS UNDER : I. TO ESTABLISH AND RUN A HOSPITAL HAVING ALL FACI LITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NURSING SKILLS. II. TO PROPAGATE MEDICAL EDUCATION AND DEVELOPM ENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ON ECONOMICAL BASIS. III. TO UPLIFT THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE NURSES. IV. TO IMPROVE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF THE NURSES W ORKING IN GOVT., SEMI-GOVT. AND PRIVATE HOSPITALS AND FACILITATE THE EVALUATION OF THEIR WORK. V. TO PROMOTE PROGRAMMES FOR PROPAGATION OF NURSING SERVICES BY PUBLISHING LITERATURE ON NURSING, PUBLIS HING JOURNALS, ARRANGING CONFERENCES, LECTURES, CAMPS AND REFRESHE R COURSES. VI. TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS WORKING IN THE FIELD OF NURSING RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT AND EDUCATION AND TO A WARD SCHOLARSHIPS FOR SUCH WORK. TO FACILITATE EVALUATI ON OF SUCH WORK AND TO IMPROVE MEDICAL SERVICES. VII. TO ENCOURAGE NURSING SUBJECT AMONGST THE NEEDY AND UPCOMING FEMALE STUDENTS AND PROPAGATE NURSING TO C REATE CAPABLE WOMEN. VIII. TO PROPAGATE AND PROMOTE MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, NURSING MANAGEMENT IN THE SOCIETY IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCAR E BY INCREASING THE STATUS OF SUCH WORK. IX. TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS AN INDIAN CITIZEN AMONG THE SOCIETY. TO ESTABLISH AND RUN WOMEN HOSTELS, OLD AGE HOMES AND CRECH ES. 2.1 HOWEVER, FROM THE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR THE FINANC IAL YEARS ENDING 31-03-2010, 31-03-2011 AND 31-03-2012, HE OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ACT IVITIES TO ACHIEVE THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. HE OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS INVOLVED ITSELF ALL THROUGH IN AGITATIONA L MOOD AND IN CONFRONTATION WITH VARIOUS AGENCIES WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM CAN 3 NEVER BE SAID TO BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. HE OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD CALLED UNION LEADERS LIKE MS. MU KTHA MANOHAR, LEADER OF PMC KARMACHARI SANGATHAN AND DEL IVERED LECTURE ON UNITY AND GENERAL ORGANIZATIONAL WORK. NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE HIM TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM TO THE RENEWAL U/S.80G. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN AS TO WHY RENEWAL SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE FILED A CORRIGENDUM ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WHICH HAS BEEN INCOR PORATED BY THE LD. CIT AND WHICH READS AS UNDER : A TOUR OF VIDARBHA WAS CONDUCTED BY THE NURSES FEDERA TION AND AGITATION WAS HELD FOR PROTESTING AGAINST THE CHANGE I N THE PATTERN OF UNIFORM OF THE NURSES. AS EARLIER MENTIONE D, THIS AGITATION WAS NOT HELD BY THE TRUST BUT THE INACCURAC IES CREPT IN DUE TO INCORRECT TRANSLATION FROM MARATHI TO ENGLISH. SIMILARLY, IT IS MENTIONED IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF 2 ND PARAGRAPH THE ISSUE OF NECESSITY OF CRCHES WAS RAISED AND THE NEED TO INTENSIFY STIR WITH THE VARIOUS GOVT. DEPARTMENTS. AC TUALLY, IT SHOULD BE READ AS THE NEED TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE WITH T HE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. THE FACTUAL MISTAKE HAS AGAIN ARISEN DUE TO THE TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH FROM MARATHI. 2.2 HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THA T THE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR VARIOUS YEARS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSEE TRUST HAS RESORTED TO AGITATIONS TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING WHICH I S NOT REFLECTED IN ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS. THE WORD ANDOLANCHA IN MARATHI IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN ALL THESE ANNUAL REPORTS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 27-11-2013 THAT THE MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSLATION FROM MARATHI TO ENGLISH IS FALSE. HE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 G(5), THE 4 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80G(2) AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15). SINCE THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO HIM WAS NOT FOUND D OING ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ENTITLED TO RENEWAL U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT. WHILE DOING SO, T HE LD.CIT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF KHEMRAJ NEMICHAND SRISHRIMAL CHARITABL E TRUST VS. CIT REPORTED IN 231 ITR 43 (MP) WHERE THE HONBLE H IGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ORGANIZING A RALLY IS NOT A CHARITABL E PURPOSE. FOR AVAILING AND GETTING BENEFIT OF SECTION 80G RALLIES /AGITATIONS ARE COMPLETE TABOO AS PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION, DHARNAS AND RALLIES ARE COMMON FORMS OF POLITICAL PROTEST AND ANY ATTEMPT T O SPONSOR THEM AS OBJECTS EVEN FOR ACHIEVING PERMISSIBLE OBJE CTIVES MAY LOSE FOR THE TRUST THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION. HE AC CORDINGLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PA GE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 23- 12-1998 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12A FROM 01-04-1997 AND THE SAME IS CONTINUING TILL TODAY AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED. REFERRING TO PARA 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT WHEREIN HE HAS REPRODUCED THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HE SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE LD.CIT THAT ANY OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE NON-CHARITABLE. REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF RULE 11 AA(5) AND 5 SECTION 80G(5) HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH T O THE CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED FOR APPROVAL OF AN INSTI TUTION OR FUND U/S.80G. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST HAS NOT BEEN SET UP FOR ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION OR CASTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, WHEN THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S.12A CONTINUES, THE LD.CIT COULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE APP ROVAL FOR RENEWAL U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAST APPROVAL FOR 80G WAS UPTO 31-03-2009. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M AYO COLLEGE OLD BOYS ASSOCIATION VS. DIT(EXEMPTION) VIDE ITA NO.2010/DELHI/2010 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL I N THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE CERTIFICATE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.12A TREATING IT AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION IS SU BSISTING AND HAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN TILL DATE, THEN UN DER SUCH SITUATION, RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.80G(5) COULD NO T BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIR ECTED THE DIT(E) TO GRANT THE RENEWAL TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IN THE IN STANT CASE THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A IS CONTINUING, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE RENEWAL U/S.80G. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT. HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE LD.CIT HAS GONE THROUGH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AND HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF DOING ANY CHARITABLE W ORK HAS 6 INVOLVED ITSELF ALL THROUGH IN AN AGITATIONAL MOOD AND IN CONFRONTATION WITH VARIOUS AGENCIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CORRELATED WITH THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER, THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31-03-2010, A CO PY OF WHICH IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 17 TO 20, DO NOT SHOW ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31-03-201 0. SIMILARLY, THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR END ING 31-03- 2012, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 24 OF THE P APER BOOK, SHOWS VERY NOMINAL EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEE TRUST IS NOT ENTITLED TO RENEWAL U/S.80G. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIDY A INSTITUTE VS. CIT REPORTED IN 43 SOT 28. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDE R SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION CANNOT CARRY OUT ANY AGITATION. IT IS ONLY THE TRUSTEES OR EMPLOYEES WHO CAN DO THAT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ALL THE TRUSTEES ARE PAST OR PRESENT NURSES W HO ARE WORKING FREE OF CHARGE. THE LD.CIT ONLY WENT THROUGH THE A NNUAL REPORTS SHOWING THE ACTIVITIES BUT HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND PROPERLY. SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF VIDYA INSTITUTE (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. HE 7 ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST SHOUL D BE GRANTED THE RENEWAL U/S. 80G. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT AND THE PAPE R BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12 A VIDE LETTER DATED 23-12-1998 OF THE CIT-II, PUNE WHICH IS CONTI NUING TILL DATE AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED OR WITHDRA WN. THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ALSO GRANTED BENEFIT OF 80G VIDE CERTIFICATE NO.PN/CIT-I/12A(A)/80G/01/06-07 DATED 24-04-2006 FO R THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-2005 TO 31-03-2009, COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE FIND THE LD.CIT R EJECTED THE RENEWAL U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST, INSTEAD OF DOING ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, WAS INVOLVED IN AGITATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND WAS IN CONFRONTATION WIT H VARIOUS AGENCIES WHICH CAN NEVER BE SAID TO BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AGITATIONS WERE NOT HELD BY THE TRUST BUT WAS DONE BY THE TRUSTEES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WHO ARE PAST OR PRESEN T NURSES AND THEY WORK FREE OF CHARGE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NONE OF THE A CTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE FOR ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION OR CASTE AND NONE OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NON-CHARITABLE. 8 7.1 WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE 12A REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IS SUBSISTING TILL DATE AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED. THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ALSO GRANTE D THE 80G BENEFIT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-2005 TO 31-03-200 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE LAS T 3 YEARS AND NONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE NON-CHARITABLE IN NATURE. MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE TRUSTEES WHO WERE PRESEN T OR PAST NURSES HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE PROTEST CONDUCTED B Y THE NURSES FEDERATION, THE SAME IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS AN AGITATION BY THE TRUST ITSELF. FURTHER SUCH AGITAT ION HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED ILLEGAL OR ANTI NATIONAL. 7.2 WE FIND THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAYO COLLEGE OLD BOYS ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) WHILE DEA LING WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE CERTIFICA TE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.12A TREATING IT AS A CHARITABLE INSTIT UTION IS SUBSISTING AND HAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN TILL DATE, THEN IN THAT CASE, RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.80G(5) SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REL IED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I. N.N. DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT 246 ITR 452 (GU J) II. SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CI T 278 ITR 262 (P&H) III. GAUR BRAHMAN VIDYA PRACHARINI SABHA VS. CIT (20 10) 129 TTJ 627 (DELHI) 9 7.3 SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIDYA INSTITUTE (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, T HE SAME, IN OUR OPINION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A CHARITABLE TRUST ESTABLISH ED ON 12-01- 2006. IT APPLIED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A A WHICH WAS GRANTED TO IT. SIMILARLY, IT APPLIED FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION U/S.80G(5). THE EXEMPTION WAS ALLOWED TO IT BY THE CIT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-2007 TO 31-03-2008. WHEN IT APPL IED FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION THE LD. CIT, AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE, ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSIO N THAT ONE OF ITS OBJECTS WAS OF RELIGIOUS IN NATURE WHICH WAS REPUGN ANT TO SUB- SECTION 3 OF SECTION 80G. SIMILARLY, SOME OF THE A IMS AND OBJECTS WERE OTHER OBJECTS AS PER SECTION 2(5). THE CIT, THEREFORE, OPINED THAT MOST OF ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS WERE HAVIN G SUCH WIDE AMPLITUDE THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THEY WERE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICATION SEEKING REN EWAL U/S.80G WAS REJECTED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUN AL UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR R ENEWAL U/S.80G. WHILE DOING SO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER OBSERVED T HAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CORRELATE ANY CHA RITABLE ACTION. ALTHOUGH IT HAD TAKEN ALL POSSIBLE CHARITABLE ACTIV ITIES IN ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS BUT IT WAS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY SINGLE ONE PRACTICALLY. IT HAD FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EXEMPTION U/S.80G WAS GRANTED IN A CYCLOSTYLED PROFORMA. THE EARLIER CIT, WITHOUT TOU CHING EVEN A SINGLE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE, HAD GRANTED APPROVAL . HOWEVER, 10 WHILE REFUSING THE RENEWAL, THE CIT HAD CONSIDERED EVERY ASPECT. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERE NT. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE CIT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS INVOLVED ITSELF ALL THROUGH IN AGITATIONAL MOOD IN CONFRONTATION WI TH VARIOUS AGENCIES. AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT IS THE TRUSTEES, WHO ARE PRESENT OR PA ST NURSES, HAVE PARTICIPATED IN SUCH ACTIVITIES AND THE TRUST ITSEL F HAS NOT PARTICIPATED IN ANY AGITATIONAL ACTIVITY. 7.4 SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADES H HIGH COURT RELIED ON BY LD.CIT IN THE CASE OF KHEMRAJ NE MICHAND SHRISHRIMAL CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT REPORTED IN 23 1 ITR 43 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND IN THAT CASE AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,5 0,000/- WAS GIVEN TO THE TRUST WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO BE SPENT FOR ORGANIZING KISAN-RALLY AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ORGANIZING AND UTILIZING THE CORPUS FOR THE TRUST ITSELF. UND ER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE DONATION GIVEN TO THE TRUST FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR ORGAN IZING A RALLY, THE SAID DONATION HAS TO BE TREATED AS THE INCOME O F THE TRUST. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT PAGES 45 AND 46 READS AS UNDER : WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING T HE MATTER, HAS FOUND THAT IN FACT THIS SUM WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE T RUST BY K. N. OIL INDUSTRIES WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS THAT THE MONEY SHOULD BE UTILISED FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PURPO SES, SUCH AS, ORGANISATION OF SEMINARS TO ENLIGHTEN THE AGRICULTU RISTS AS REGARDS MODERN TECHNIQUES OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS O R SOME SORT OF PROGRAMME BY WHICH THE AGRICULTURISTS IN GENER AL ARE BENEFITED TO OVERCOME THEIR EXISTING PROBLEMS. THIS LE TTER WAS 11 WRITTEN ON JANUARY 20, 1981, BY K. N. OIL INDUSTRIES, WHILE SENDING THE AFORESAID MONEY TO THE TRUST. THEREAFTER, ON FEBRUARY 22, 1981, THE TRUSTEES WROTE BACK TO K. N. O IL INDUSTRIES FOR SENDING A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND IN THAT IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT ONE RALLY OF THE AGRICULTURISTS FROM ALL OVER M. P. WILL BE REACHING DELHI, WHERE SIMILAR RALLIES FROM ALMOST ALL OTHER STATES OF THE COUNTRY WILL ASSEMBLE AND MEET THE PRIME MINIST ER, UNION AGRICULTURAL MINISTER AND OTHER OFFICIALS TO APPRISE T HEM OF THEIR VARIOUS DIFFICULTIES BEING FACED BY THEM IN THEIR DAY TO DAY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT WAS SEN T FOR ORGANISING SUCH RALLIES. THERE IS ANOTHER COMMUNICATION DATED MARCH 7, 1981, BY K. N. OIL INDUSTRIES THAT A SUM OF R S. 1,00,000 IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST FROM THEIR HEAD OFFICE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPME NT PURPOSES AND THEN AGAIN A SUM OF RS. 75,000 WAS TRANSFERRED TO T HAT ACCOUNT FROM THE BRANCH OF K. N. OIL INDUSTRIES, NAM ELY, GANESH TWINE MILLS, RAIPUR, OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS. 50,000 WAS TO BE UTILISED FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE REMAIN ING RS. 25,000 BE UTILISED FOR GENERAL CHARITABLE/RELIGIOUS P URPOSES, AS IT DEEMED FIT. THEREFORE, FROM THESE COMMUNICATIONS, THE TRIBUNAL INFERRED THAT IN FACT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NOT SENT TO THE CHARITABLE TRUST, BUT IT WAS BASICALLY MEANT FOR ORGAN ISING A 'KISAN RALLY' BY THE CONGRESS (I) PARTY AT DELHI. FROM THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF DONATIONS HAD BEEN SENT TO THIS INSTITUTION, WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE A CHARITABLE INSTI TUTION, IT IS NOWHERE STATED AS TO WHAT KIND OF CHARITY THEY ARE OR GANISING. BUT THE DONATIONS, WHICH HAD BEEN SENT BY K. N. OIL I NDUSTRIES OR BY GANESH TWINE MILLS, WERE SENT WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIO NS TO BE SPENT ON ORGANISING 'KISAN RALLY' AND NOT FOR THE PURP OSE OF ORGANISING AND UTILISING THE CORPUS FOR THE TRUST ITSELF . THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THIS HAS TO BE TREATED AS INC OME AND ACCORDINGLY IT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL APPEARS TO BE FULLY JUSTIFIED I N THE PRESENT SITUATION. WE COULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE MONEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT BY THESE TWO UNITS, I.E., K. N. OIL INDUSTRI ES AND GANESH TWINE MILLS, TO THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION WITHOUT AN Y DIRECTION, ENTRUSTING THAT THE TRUST WILL UTILISE THE SAME FOR TH E WELFARE OR CHARITIES FOR WHICH THE TRUST IS CREATED, BUT THAT IS N OT THE CASE HERE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS SE NT WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION SHOULD BE UTILISED FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ESPECIALLY FOR ORGA NISING THE RALLY AT DELHI, WHICH WAS BEING ORGANISED BY THE CONG RESS (I) PARTY. THEREFORE, THIS DONATION SENT BY K. N. OIL IND USTRIES OR GANESH TWINE MILLS CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE EXEMPTED AND IT WILL HAVE TO BE TREATED TO BE AN INCOME OF THE INSTITUTIO N AND HAS TO BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED. HENCE, WE ANSWER T HE TWO QUESTIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVEN UE. 12 7.5 HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE COMP LETELY DIFFERENT AS STATED EARLIER. THEREFORE, THE DECISI ON RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT APPLICAB LE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 7.6 SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A IS CONTINUING AND THE ASSESSEE TRUST ALSO FULFILS THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF 80G BENEFIT, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST SHOULD NOT BE DENIED RENEWA L U/S.80G FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE LD .CIT TO ALLOW THE CLAIM FOR RENEWAL U/S.80G. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-02-2015. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R. K.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT-IV, PUNE 4. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE 13