Advik foundation, Pune V. Commissioner of Income-tax - V, Pune

ITA 1617/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67044 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH VERMA
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1617 AND 1618/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ADVIK FOUNDATION, GAT NO.357, PLOT NO.99, PART-A, CHAKAN TALEGAON ROAD, KHARABWADI, CHAKAN, PUNE 410501 PAN NO. AACTA 7461R .. APPELLANT VS. CIT-V, PUNE .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHARAD SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUKESH VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 18-06-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-06-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 18-07-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-V, P UNE DENYING REGISTRATION U/S.12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS DENIAL OF GRANTING RECOGNITION U/S.80G(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AN D ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 25 DAYS IN FILING OF THE ABO VE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AF FIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE SAME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE CONDONATION PETITION AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES THE DELAY IN FILING OF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE CONDONED. 2 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.1618/PN/2011, WHEREIN TH E ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED DENIAL OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE I .T. ACT. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST W AS CREATED ON 24-02-2009 VIDE REGISTRATION NO. E-5425. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A IN FORM NO.10A ON 30-12-2010 WHICH WAS RECE IVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CIT ON 06-01-2011. SINCE THE FORM NO .10A WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH THE DOCUMENTS AS MENTIONED UNDER R ULE17A AND 17B OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1961 A LETTER WAS ISSUED O N 10-01-2011 CALLING FOR THE REQUISITE DETAILS AS PER PAGE NO.1 & 2 OF T HE ORDER OF THE CIT. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME FILED THE DETA ILS AS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 07-03 -2011 THAT THE TRUST HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITY TILL DATE. THE LD. CI T THEREFORE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EVEN THOUGH THE TRUST WAS REGISTERE D WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER ON 02-02-2010 AND SEVERAL CHARITABLE A CTIVITIES WERE INCLUDED IN THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST IT HAS NOT CAR RIED ON ANY ACTIVITY, THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST IS NOT CHARITABLE. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SELF EMPLOYERS SERVICE SOCIETY VS. CIT REPORTED IN 247 I TR 18 THE LD. CIT DECLINED GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA(1)(B)(II) O F THE I.T. ACT. HE, HOWEVER, HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO FILE A FRESH APPLICATION ALONG WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT DENYIN G GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A/12AA THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED IT S APPEAL BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A/12AA SINCE THE REJECTION ORDER IS GIVEN BEYOND THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE LAW. 3 2. THE ORDER OF REJECTION GIVEN BEYOND THE TIME ALL OWED BE QUASHED AND REGISTRATION U/S.12A/12AA BE CONFIRMED AS HAVING BEEN GRANTED. 3. THE LD. CIT ERRED IN NOT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A/12AA. 4. THE LD. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE T RUST DOES NOT CARRY CHARITABLE OBJECTS GENUINELY. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD TO OR ALTE R THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING OF THE CASE. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET S UBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT IN THE CASE OF SE LF EMPLOYERS SERVICE SOCIETY (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE. REFERRING TO THE SAID DECISION HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION WERE NOT THAT THE TRUST WAS NEWLY REGI STERED BUT THAT ITS ACTIVITIES WERE NOT CHARITABLE. IT WAS FOUND ON EN QUIRY BY THE CIT THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WERE MAINLY MERCHANTS. ITS ACTIVITY WAS ACCEPTING THE RECURRING DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS A ND FIXED DEPOSITS FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE LOAN WAS BEING GIVEN TO ITS MEMBERS AT 21% INTEREST. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND IN THAT CASE THAT I NSPITE OF REFERENCE TO LARGE NUMBER OF CHARITABLE OBJECTS IN ITS BYE-LAWS THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE SOCIETY WAS CONFINED TO ITS MEMBERS NUMBERIN G ABOUT 150. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST C ANNOT BE TREATED AS CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND THE CIT CAME TO THE CONCLU SION THAT IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS QUITE DIFFERENT AND THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 4 4.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. FOUNDATION OF OP HTHALMIC AND OPTOMETRY (A COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED IN THE PAPER B OOK) HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW : WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGH T IN HOLDING THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE APPLICATION U/S.12AA(1)(B) R.W.S. 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE CONCERNED COMMISSIONE R/DIRECTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRUST HAS ACTUALLY COMMENDED AND HAS, IN FACT, CARRIED ON CHA RITABLE ACTIVITIES? 4.2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER DRE W THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT : 9. THE PROVISION IN THIS CASE I.E. SECTION-12A STA TES THAT WHEN A TRUST IS DESIROUS OF GETTING ITSELF REGISTERED AS CHARITABLE , IT HAS TO APPROACH THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION-12AA. THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER TO REGISTER OR REFUSE THE APPLICATION ARE EXPRESSLY SP ELT OUT IN SECTION-12AA ITSELF. RULE-12AA (B) READS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 12A A. PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION (1) THE COMMISSIONER, ON RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION MADE UNDER C LAUSE (A) OF SECTION 12A, SHALL - (A) CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH A INQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THIS BEHALF; AND (B) AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF T HE TRUST OR INSTITUTION GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES, HE - (I) SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REGISTERING THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION; (II) SHALL, IF HE IS NOT SO SATISFIED, PASS AN ORDE R IN WRITING REFUSING TO REGISTER THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AND A COPY OF SUCH ORDER SHALL BE SENT TO THE APPLICANT: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (II) SHALL BE PASSED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD. (1A) ALL APPLICATIONS, PENDING BEFORE THE CHIEF COM MISSIONER ON WHICH NO ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTI ON (1) BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1999, SHALL STAND TRANSFERRED ON THAT DAY TO THE COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER MAY PROCEED WITH SUCH APPLICATIONS UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THEY WERE ON THAT DAY. 5 (2) EVERY ORDER GRANTING OR REFUSING REGISTRATION U NDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION (1) SHALL BE PASSED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SI X MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED UNDER C LAUSE (A) OF SECTION 12A.' 10. FACIALLY, THE ABOVE PROVISION WOULD SUGGEST THA T THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS OF THE KIND WHICH THE REVENUE IS READING INTO IN TH IS CASE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE STATUTE DOES NOT PROHIBIT OR ENJOIN THE COMMISSIONE R FROM REGISTERING TRUST SOLELY BASED ON ITS OBJECTS, WITHOUT ANY ACTIVITY, IN THE CASE OF A NEWLY REGISTERED TRUST. THE STATUTE DOES NOT PRESCRIBE A WAITING PERIOD, FOR A TRUST TO QUALIFY ITSELF FOR REGISTRATION. 11. IF THE REVENUE'S CONTENTIONS ARE CORRECT THEN, NECESSARILY, A CONDITION WOULD HAVE TO BE READ IN TO THE PROVISION THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THE TRUST IS IN FACT ENGAGED IN CHAR ITABLE ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD IN TURN INJECT CONSIDERABLE DEAL OF SUBJECTIVITY. I T IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT IF SUCH FLEXIBILITY IS INTRODUCED, IT WOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO VARIED INTERPRETATION BY THE DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES, IN THAT SOME WOULD BE SATISF IED WITH ACTIVITY OF FEW MONTHS, WHILE OTHERS MAY WISH TO EXAMINE THE ACTIVI TIES OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR LONGER TIME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS C OURT IS PERSUADED TO FOLLOW THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO SECTION-12AA BY THE KAR NATAKA HIGH COURT IN DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) V. MEENAKSHI AM MA ENDOWMENT TRUST (SUPRA). 12. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE COURT ANSWERS THE QU ESTION OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE COURT IN THE ABOVE CI TED DECISION HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SELF EMPLOYERS SERVICE SOCIETY (SUPRA). 4.3 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KUTCHI DASA OSWAL MOTO PARIWAR AMBA MA TRUST VIDE TAX APPEAL NO.918/2011 ORDER DATED 10-12-2012 ( A C OPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 116 TO 123) THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE CIT CANNOT REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAVE NOT COMMENCED. 6 4.4 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VS. MEE NAKSHI AMMA ENDOWMENT TRUST REPORTED IN 50 DTR 243 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE TRUST HAVING APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A WITHIN A SPAN OF 8 MONTHS OF ITS PERMISSION, REGISTRATION COULD NOT BE REFUSED ON TH E GROUND THAT IT HAD NOT YET COMMENCED ANY ACTIVITY. IN SUCH A CASE, OBJ ECTS OF THE TRUST HAVE TO BE EXAMINED TO ASCERTAIN ITS GENUINENESS. RELY ING ON VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THESE DECISIONS. 4.5 REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT REFUSING GRANT OF REGISTRATION ON 18-07-2011 HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ORDER EIT HER GRANTING OR REFUSAL WAS NOT PASSED WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FIL ING, GRANT OF REGISTRATION IS AUTOMATIC. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, H E RELIED ON A PLETHORA OF DECISIONS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT REGISTRATION U/S.12AA SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE TRUST. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE TRUST WAS CREATED ON 24-02-2009 AND HAS GOT THE REGISTRAT ION FROM THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER ON 02-02-2010 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT YET CARRIED ON ANY ACTIVITY TILL 18-03-2011 AS PER THE SUBMISSION FILE D BEFORE THE LD. CIT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING T HE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYERS SERVICE SOCIETY (SUPRA). 7 5.1 SO FAR AS THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THOSE CASES, THE RES PECTIVE TRUSTS HAVE CARRIED ON THE ACTIVITIES AFTER REASONABLE TIME. H OWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRUST HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITY EV EN AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 2 YEARS AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST ITSELF . HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT SHOULD BE U PHELD. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND THE PAPER BOOK FIL ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECI SIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE T RUST WAS CREATED ON 24- 02-2009 AND GOT THE REGISTRATION FROM THE CHARITY C OMMISSIONER ON 02- 02-2010. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED FORM NO.10A ON 30-12-2010 AND AFTER POINTING OUT TH E DEFECTS THEREIN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COMPLETE DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 07-03-2011. WE FIND THE LD. CIT DENIED GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.1 2AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT ALTHOUGH SEVERAL C HARITABLE ACTIVITIES WERE INCLUDED IN THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST THE ASSES SEE TRUST HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY ACTIVITY TILL THE DATE OF APPLICATION AND EV EN TILL THE DATE OF HEARING. FOR THIS PROPOSAL, THE LD. CIT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SELF EMPLO YERS SERVICE SOCIETY (SUPRA). IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. FOU NDATION OF OPHTHALMIC & OPTOMETRY AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH 8 COURT IN THE CASE OF KUTCHI DASA OSWAL MOTO PARIWAR AMBAMA TRUST AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (EXEMPTIONS) VS. MEENAKSHI AMMA ENDOWMENT TRUST ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 6.1 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. FOUNDATION OF OPHTHALMIC & OPTOMETRY (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SELF EMPLO YERS SERVICE SOCIETY AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNA TAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEENAKSHI AMMA ENDOWMENT TRUST HAS HELD THAT THE CIT/DIRECTOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE QUESTIO N WHETHER THE TRUST HAS ACTUALLY COMMENCED AND HAS, INFACT, CARRIED ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 6.2 SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF KUTCHI DASA OSWAL MOTO PARIWAR AMBAMA TRUST (SUPRA) HAS HE LD AS UNDER : 4. UPON PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, IT EMERGES THAT UPON RECEIPT OF AN APPLICA TION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12A(1) (A) OF TH E ACT, THE COMMISSIONER WOULD CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM T HE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABO UT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THIS BEHALF. AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND THE GENU INENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES, THE COMMISSIONER WOULD PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REGISTE RING A TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AND IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED, WOULD PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REFUSING THE REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. 5. IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT UNDER SECTION 12AA OF TH E ACT, THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJEC TIVES OF THE TRUST AND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES. FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE HAS THE POWER TO CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE TRUST AS HE THINK ARE NECESSARY. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAVE NOT COMMENCED, THE COMMISSIONER HAS AUTHORITY TO REJECT ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST FAILED TO CONVINCE HIM ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES. THAT IS WHAT UNFORTU NATELY THE COMMISSIONER DID IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER , WE SEE NO ERROR IN THE TRIBUNALS IMPUGNED ORDER REVERSING THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER. IT IS OF COURSE TRUE THAT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUS T HAVE NOT COMMENCED, IF THE COMMISSIONER HAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IN HIS COMMAND , HE MAY STILL COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE O BJECTIVES OF THE TRUST OR THE 9 GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES. WE UNDERSTAND THE DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, MERELY ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAD NOT COMMENCED, THE COMMISSIONER WA S PERSUADED TO REJECT ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, WHICH IN OUR OPIN ION, WAS NOT APPROPRIATE AND THEREFORE, RIGHTLY INTERFERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 7. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPEAL IS, THEREFO RE, DISMISSED. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY ACTIVITY TILL THE TIME OF APPLICATION THE LD . CIT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING REGISTRATION U/S.12AA O F THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST SINCE NONE OF THE OBJECTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE NON- CHARITABLE BY THE LD. CIT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MAT TER, WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT AND DIRECT HIM TO GRANT REGIST RATION U/S.12AA OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THIS ISSUE WE REF RAIN OURSELVES FROM ADJUDICATING THE OTHER GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT BE QUASHED SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT PASSED BEYOND THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS. ITA NO.1617/PN/2011 : 9. ALTHOUGH A NUMBER OF GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THEY ALL RELATE TO DENIAL OF REGISTRATION U/S.80G O F THE I.T. ACT. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESS EE APPLIED THROUGH FROM NO.10G ON 06-01-2011 FOR RECOGNITION U/S.80G O F THE I.T. ACT. SINCE THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE CIT, THEREFORE, HE DECLINED TO GRANT RECOGNITION U/ S.80G(5) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED THE CIT TO GRANT REG ISTRATION U/S.12AA OF 10 THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST VIDE ITA NO.1618 /PN/2011 IN THE PRECEEDING PARAS. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT TO GRANT RECOGNITION U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JUNE 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 24 TH JUNE 2013 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4 CIT-V, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE