KRANTI MAHILA MANCH, Alwar V. CIT-EXEMPTION, Jaipur

ITA 185/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9693 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12A; 12AA; 10; 11

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 185 & 186/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR:................. KRANTI MAHILA MANCH, C/O- RAKESH GUPTA, NEAR BUS STAND, IN FRONT OF PETROL PUMP, LAXMANGARH. CUKE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR. PAN NO.: AACTK 3916 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 187 & 188/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR:................. JAGRATI MAHILA MANCH, C/O- KAILASH SHARMA, OPPOSITE MADHO SINGH BABA KA ASTHAN, NEAR NALDESHWAR MANDIR, THANAGAZI, ALWAR. CUKE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR. PAN NO.: AABTJ 9821 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 189 & 190/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR:................. CHETNA MAHILA MANCH, C/O- GAJANAND SAIN, NEAR BUS STAND, PRATAPGARH. CUKE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR. PAN NO.: AABTC 6566 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 2 FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI & SHRI ROHAN SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01/03/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/03/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS A BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS FILED BY THREE DIFFE RENT ASSESSEES/SOCIETIES AGAINST THE SIX SEPARATE ORDERS ALL DATED 29/12/2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR FOR NOT GRANTING TH E REGISTRATION U/S 12AA & 80G(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. SINCE TWO COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE APPEA LS, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE AND BREVITY, A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 3. IN THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 185/JP/2016 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN REJECTING T HE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AS THIS IS BA D IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDE RING THE TRUST AS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND REJECTING TH E APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BASED ON THE SAME FACT . ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 3 3. THE LD. CIT(E) HAS ERRED IN MAKING REJECTING OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BASED ON INCORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AS THIS IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED . 4. THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. IN ITA NO. 187/JP/2016 AND 189/JP/2016, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALSO AS ABOVE. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 186/JP/2016 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN REJECTING T HE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 80G AS THIS IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE AFORESAID GROUND IS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. IN THE OTHER APPEALS I.E. ITA NO. 188/JP/2016 AND 1 90/JP/2016, THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN IDENTICAL GROUNDS MENTIONED AB OVE. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED APPLICATIONS IN FORM NO. 10A SEEKING REGISTRATION U /S 12AA OF THE ACT ON 26/6/2015. THESE ASSESSEES WERE ASKED TO PRODUCE CER TAIN DOCUMENTS/EXPLANATIONS ALONGWITH ORIGINAL TRUST DEED/ MOA FOR VERIFICATION. IN RESPONSE THEREOF, THE CA/AR, THE A CCOUNTANT AND COORDINATOR OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY APPEARED. THE FI ELD OFFICER/ITO(E), ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 4 ALWAR WAS ALSO ASKED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. AFTER VERIFICATION OF GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITI ES OF THE TRUST, HE RECOMMENDED THAT THESE APPLICANT SOCIETIES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO VERIF Y THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE FIELD OFFICER, THE APPLICANTS WERE REQUES TED VIDE LETTER DATED 12/11/2015 TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IN RESPONS E THEREOF, THE AR OF THE APPLICANTS ATTENDED AND ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED. O N EXAMINATION OF ACTIVITIES OF THESE SOCIETIES, IT WAS NOTICED THAT T HERE ARE BASICALLY A COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHERE MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION IS COLLECTED AND GIVEN TO THE MEMBER ITSELF AS LOAN AGAINST INTEREST. IT I S ALSO RECEIVING CONTRIBUTION FROM PARENT AGENCY IBTADA AND SELF HEL P GROUPS (SHG). THE LD. CIT(E) ALSO NOTICED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS TH AT THE MANCHES ARE EARNING INCOME FROM SERVICE CHARGES, FA BHATTA, AGR ICULTURE INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME. HE HELD THAT THESE APPLICANTS ARE CREATING GROUP OF FEW MEMBERS UNDER SHG. THE BENEFIT THROUGH THESE GROUPS IS LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE GROUP AND NOT TO BE PUBLIC AT LARGE. THUS IN THIS WAY IT WORKS AS A MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY FOR FEW MEMBERS ONL Y. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE CHARITY DEMANDS THAT BENEFIT SHOULD FLOW TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, WHILE THE MUTUALITY IS FOR THE PERSONS RESTRICTED WIT HIN THE GROUP. IT CAN BE SAID THAT CHARITY AND MUTUALITY ARE MUTUALLY EXC LUSIVE AND THEY CANNOT ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 5 BE STAY TOGETHER. AS THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE F ALLS UNDER MUTUALITY, IT CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIM BENEFIT UNDER CHARITY. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(E) REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(E) ALSO HELD THAT ONCE THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REJECTED, THEN THE SOCIETY IS NOT ELIG IBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE ALSO REJECTED THE APPL ICATIONS FOR SEEKING EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS APPEALS BEFORE US. THE AR OF T HE ASSESSEE REGARDING ALL THE APPEALS HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 1.1.I THE APPELLANT TRUSTS ARE INVOLVED IN CHARITABLE ACTI VITIES BY WAY OF RELIEF OF THE POOR AND ALSO EDUCATION. RELIEF OF POOR IS ACHIEVED BY PROVIDING SUPPORT TO POOR WOMEN IN DIFFE RENT SHGS IN TERMS OF HELPING THEM WITH GET BANK CREDIT AND PROVIDING TRAINING/EDUCATION AND SERVICES TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVELIHOODS. 1.1.II THE BENEFIT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AP PELLANT TRUSTS. ON THE CONTRARY THE BENEFICIARIES ARE PUBLIC AT LARGE. THE CONCEPT OF SELF HELP GROUPS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED A BOVE. THERE IS NO LIMIT OF SELF HELP GROUPS AFFILIATED TO THE APPELLANT TRUSTS. MENTIONED BELOW ARE THE DETAILS OF SHGS WHICH ARE AFFILIATED/REGISTERED WITH THE TRUSTS AND ITS MEMBERS TO WHOM BENEFIT OF THE EFFORTS OF THE APPEL LANT TRUST PERCOLATES. APPELLATE TRUST NO. OF SHGS ASSOCIATED/ AFFILIATED NO. OF MEMBERS PAPER BOOK KMM 164 1,977 PB-I, PG. :32-35 ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 6 CMM 155 1,863 PB-I, PG.: 22-24 JMM 151 1,758 PB-II, PG. : 15-17 1.1.III THE TRUST ALWAYS MOTIVATES POOR WOMEN TO FORM SHGS. 1.1.IV WHEN THESE WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED, EDUCATED AND TRAINED VOCATIONALLY THE BENEFIT IS PASSED ON TO THEIR FAMI LY INCLUDING CHILDREN. THUS, THE BENEFIT MULTIPLIES AND S OCIETY AT LARGE IS BENEFITED. 1.1.V LD. CIT(E) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MODERN CONCEPT OF EMPOWERING WOMEN THROUGH FORMATION OF SELF HELP GROUP S AND PROVIDING MICRO-FINANCE AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING TO THE MEMBERS OF SELF HELP GROUPS. 1.1.VI LD. CIT(E) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SAYING: IF YOU TEACH (EMPOWER) A MAN, YOU TEACH (EMPOWER) A MAN WHEREAS IF YOU TEACH (EMPOWER) A WOMAN, YOU TEACH (EMPOWER) A FAMILY 1.1. THE APPELLANTS ARE A MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY. M UTUALITY IS OPPOSED TO THE CONCEPT OF CHARITY. 1.1.I THE APPELLANTS ARE TRUSTS. NONE OF THE MEMBERS OF TH E TRUSTS GET ANY BENEFIT OF THE TRUSTS. NONE OF THE MEMBERS O F THE TRUSTS MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TRUSTS. THE AFFILIATE D SELF HELP GROUPS ARE DEFINITELY MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES. THE LD. CIT(E) HAS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN NOT BEING ABL E TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE BENEFICIARIES SELF HELP G ROUPS AND THE APPELLANT TRUSTS. 1.2. THE INTEREST IS CHARGED(EARNED) IS ABOVE NORMA L BANKING RATE AND THUS CONTAINS ELEMENT OF PROFIT. 1.2.I THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT T RUSTS IS ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT OF THE WOMEN BY PROVIDING MICR O- ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 7 FINANCE TO THEM THROUGH SHGS. THE APPELLANT TRUSTS TH ROUGH THE RECOGNIZED SCHEME OF NABARD AND IN ASSOCIATION W ITH YES BANK ARRANGE MICRO-FINANCE TO THE WOMEN OF THE ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTION OF THE SOCIETY. NO BANK PROVIDES LOANS TO ANY OF THE SHGS UNLESS THEY HAVE WORKED FOR 6 MONTHS AND DEMONSTRATES DISCIPLINED FUNCTIONIN G OF BORROWINGS AND REPAYMENT THROUGH SAVINGS. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT TRUSTS PROVIDES INITIAL FINANCE FOR SIX MO NTHS AND ALSO HAND HOLDS THE SHGS FOR INCULCATING FINANCIAL DISCIPLINE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THE MEMBERS. DURING THIS PERIOD INTEREST IS CHARGED AT THE SAME RATE AT WHICH BANKS WOULD PROVIDE MICRO-FINANCE TO THESE SHGS AFTER SIX MONTH S. THUS THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT. CHARGING OF INTEREST IS NECESSARY TO TEACH THE SHG MEMBERS, THE CONCEPT OF BORROWINGS AT INTEREST FOR THEIR ECONOMIC ADVANCEME NT. FURTHER, THE POOR WOMEN IN VILLAGES PAY HIGH INTERES T OF 36% TO 60% WHEN THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF SHGS. 1.2.II THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION ON THE ALLEGATION OF PROFIT ELEMENT IS BASELESS. LD. CIT(E) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. THE APPELLANT TRUSTS PROVIDE VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL INPUTS TO THE DIFFERENT SELF HELP GROUPS ON THE BASIS OF MAKING COLLECTIVE AND CENTRALIZED BUYING AT A MUCH CHEAPER RATE. EVEN IF A SLIGHT MARKUP ON THE SAID PR ICE MAKES THE SAID GOODS AVAILABLE AT A MUCH CHEAPER RATE THE N THE MEMBERS AT SELF HELP GROUPS BUYING INDIVIDUALLY. THE MARKUP IS TO RECOVER THE COST INCURRED BY THE TRUSTS. 1.2.III MERELY BECAUSE A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION ESTABLISHED F OR THE PURPOSE OF UPLIFTMENT OF THE RURAL WOMEN WAS MAKING SURPLUS FROM THE CURRENT INCOME. IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THESE WERE FORMED WITH THE OBJECT OF EARNING PROFIT AND THAT ITS ACTIVITY IS COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. RELIANCE IS PLA CED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 8 PETERS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY(2016) 287 CTR (SC) 132. I N THIS ORDER, HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOLLOWED ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2015) 275 CTR 449 (SC). 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE PURPOSE OF A TRUST O R INSTITUTION IS RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION OR MEDICAL RELIEF, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE WOULD BE FULLY SATISFIED EVEN IF AN ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT IS C ARRIED ON IN THE COURSE OF THE ACTUAL CARRYING OUT OF THE PRIMARY PU RPOSE OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF GAYATRI WOMEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION (1993) 20 3 ITR 389 (KAR) HELD THAT THE TRUST WAS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION AN D WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11.IN THIS CASE THE INSTITUTION WAS ESTABLISHED FOR REHABILITATING THE ECONOMICALLY HANDICAPPED WOMEN AND DESTITUTE WOMEN BY GIVING THE M SUITABLE EMPLOYMENT, SET UP A UNIT ANCILLARY TO AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING THEREBY PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT TO SEVERAL WOMEN DRAWN FROM THE WEAKER SECTION OF THE SOCIETY. 3. IN THE CASE OF BHARATHA SWAMUKTI SAMSTHE (2009) 319 ITR (AT) 422 (BANGALORE), THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS RECOGNIZED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION WITH THE OBJECTS OF POVERT Y ALLEVIATION AND BENEFIT OF SOCIO-ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS, THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER MICRO-CREDIT TO POOR WOMEN IN SOCIO- ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTION OF THE SOCIETY WOULD QU ALIFY FOR EXEMPTION AS COVERED BY THE OBJECTS. THE AO TOOK TH E VIEW THAT GIVING LOANS TO POOR WOMEN ON INTEREST COULD N OT BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AND THAT IT AMOUNTED TO EXPLOIT ATION OF POOR WOMEN. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ALLEGA TION OF EXORBITANT INTEREST WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, SO THAT THE INFERENCE OF EXPLOITATION CANNOT STAND. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THIS ACTIVITY WAS RECOGNIZED AS CHARITABLE FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS IN ASSESSEES CASE BY INFERRING THAT GIVING LOAN AT REASONABLE INTEREST TO POOR WOMEN, WHO HAD OTHERWISE NO ACCESS FOR SUCH CREDIT, IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS A CHARITABLE ACTI VITY, AS SUCH ACTIVITY CAN UPLIFT THE ECONOMIC STATUS OF SUC H WOMEN. ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 9 THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THEY COULD HAVE O BTAINED A CHEAPER LOAN. IT IS IN THIS VIEW, RIGHT TO EXEMPT ION AND RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G WAS HELD T O BE JUSTIFIED BY THE HONBLE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH . 4. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE HONBLE BEN CH THAT FOLLOWING TRUSTS HAVING IDENTICAL OBJECTS AND FUNCT IONING HAVE BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA. DETAI LS ARE AS UNDER: NAME OF THE TRUST : SANGHARSH MAHILA MANCH PARTICULARS PAPER BOOK - II KMM CMM JMM TRUST DEED 40-47 30-37 22-29 12A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE 48 38 30 80G REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE 49 39 31 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) 50-51 40-41 32-33 NAME OF THE TRUST : SAVERAMAHILAMANCH PARTICULARS PAPER BOOK - II KMM CMM JMM TRUST DEED 52-60 42-50 34-42 12A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE 61 51 43 80G REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE 62 52 44 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) 63-64 53-54 45-46 IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IBTADA IS ALSO GRANTED 12 A REGISTRATION AND ITS ASSESSMENTS ARE COMPLETED ALLO WING SECTION 11 BENEFIT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD. CIT(E) MAY BE DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA TO ALL THE APPELLAT E TRUSTS. REGARDING REGISTRATION U/S 80G THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE AND OWING TO THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT TRUSTS, THEY ARE ENTIT LED TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA. AS A RESULT THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION UNDER ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 10 SECTION 80G. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD. CIT(E) MAY BE DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80G TO ALL THE APPELLATE TRUSTS. 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE CIT DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(E) AND PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDERS PAS SED BY HIM IN ALL THE APPEALS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E). IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST FIL ED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IS BEING GRANTED WHEN THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY SATISFIES ITSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE SAME. THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THIS ASSESSEE TRUST ARE AS UNDER:- VLV DS MN~NS'; I. LEKT ESA EFGYKVKSA DK LKEKFTD ,OA VKFFKZD FINM+SIU DKS NWJ DJUS ESA LG;KSX IZNKU DJUKA II. EFGYKVKSA DS LO;A LGK;RK LEWGKSA ,OA EFGYK LHKKVKSA DYLVJKSA DK XBU DJ MUDH {KERKO/KZU DJUKA III. LO;A LGK;RK LEWG VK/KKFJR QSMJS'KU EAP DK VU; {KS = ESA FUEKZ.K DJUK VFKOK FUEKZ.K DJUS ESA ENN DJUKA IV. EFGYK LOA; LGK;RK LEWG DS VURXZR PY JGH FOFHKUU XFR FOF/K;KSA DH NS[KJS[K DJUK O MUDS LQPK: LAPKYU ESA LG;KSX DJU KA ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 11 V. LO;A LGK;RK LEWGKSA DS LQPK: LAPKYU GSRQ FU;E ,OA F N'KK&FUNSZ'K R; DJUKA VI. XKJHC ,OA OAFPR OXZ DS FY, F'K{KK] LOKLFK;] TY ,OA LOPNRK] VKOKL ,OA EWYHKWR LQFO/KKA, MIYC/K DJKUS GSRQ XFRFO F/K;KSA DK LAPKYU DJUKA VII. VKTHFODK ,OA IK;KZOJ.K GSRQ D`FK] I'KQIKYU] TY ,OA HKWLAJ{K.K] TY XZG.K FUDKL] LKEKFTD OKFUDH VKFN XFRFOF/K;KSA DK LA PKYU DJUKA VIII. LO;A LGK;RK LEWGKSA DKS CSADKS ,OA VU; FORRH; LALFK KVKSA LS _.K MIYC/K DJKUS ESA LGK;KSX DJUKA IX. LJDKJ] CSAD] NKUNKRK ,OA VU; FORRH; LALFKKVKSA LS _ .K ,OA VUQNKU IZKIR DJ LO;A LGK;RK LEWGKSA DKS VFKOK MUDS LNL;KSA DKS VUQNKU ,OA _.K NSUKA X. _.K IZKIR DJUS DS FY, VLV }KJK VFTZR LEIFRR DKS _. KNKRK DS I{K ESA FXJOH ;K EKSVZXSV DJUKA XI. LO;A LGK;RK LEWGKSSA O MUDS LNL;KSA }KJK RS;KJ FD;S X;S MRIKNKSA DH FCH DJUK ,OA FCH ESA LGK;KSX DJUKA XII. LJDKJ ,OA VU; LALFKKVKSA DH ;KSTUKVKSSA DKS DK;Z{KS = ESA F;KFUOR DJUK ;K F;KUO;U ESA LG;KSX DJUKA XIII LJDKJH ,OA XSJ LJDKJH DK;ZEKSSA DS DK;ZDRKZVKSA DK EKAX VUQLKJ IZF'K{K.K ,OA 'KS{KSF.KD HKZE.K DJOKUKA XIV. LO;A LGK;RK LEWGKSA DS LNL;KSA DS LEKFTD ,OA VKFFKZ D FODKL GSRQ FOFHKUU ;KSTUKVKSSA] DK;ZEKSA O LALFKKVKSA DS LKFK RKYESY ,OA LK>SNKJH LFKKFIR DJUKA XV. VLV DS MN~NS';KSA DH IZKFIR GSRQ FOFHKUU L=KSRKSA LS LJDKJH] XSJ LJDKJH] CSAD] FORRH; ,OA VU; LALFKK,WA FORRH; VUQN KU IZKIR DJUKA XVI. LKEWGKSA DH EQF[K;KVKSA] LKEQNKF;D LGTDRKZ ,OA EFGY K IZF'K{KDKSA DK {KERKO/KZU DJUKA ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 12 XVII. EKFGYKVKSA DS VKFFKZD FODKL GSRQ VKTHFODK LAO/KZU D H XFRFOF/K;KSA DK LAPKYU DJUKA XVIII. ,SLH LHKH FOF/K LOHD`R XFRFOF/K;KWA LO;A LS ;K VU; LALFKKVKSA DS LKFK FEYDJ DJUK TKS BL VLV DS MN~NS';KSA DH IWFRZ ESA LG;KSXH GKSA THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS. IN THE CASE OF PETERS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2016) 287 CTR ( SC) 132, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE AN EDU CATIONAL INSTITUTION CARRIES ON THE ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION PRIMARILY FOR EDUCATING PERSONS, THE FACT THAT IT MAKES A SURPLUS DOES NOT LEAD TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT IT CEASES TO EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND BECOME S AN INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING PROFIT. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCAT IONAL SOCIETY (2015) 275 CTR 449 (SC). THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF BANGALORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ADIT (E) VS. BHARATHA SWAMUKHI SAM STHE (2009) 319 ITR (AT) 422 IN ITA NO. 1121/BANG/2008, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE BANGALORE ITAT HAS HELD THAT OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLEVIATION OF POVERTY BY EXTENDING MICRO CREDITS T O POOR RURAL WOMEN AND IT WAS NOT CHARGING EXORBITANT INTEREST AND THERE BE ING NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT FUNDS WERE USED OR MISUSED FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT OF THE TRUSTEES, IT WAS ENTITLED TO RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U /S 80G(5) OF THE ACT. THE LD AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JAIPUR ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 13 ABHIBHASHAK PENSION SAHYOG SAMITI, ALWAR VS. CIT(E), JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 632/JP/2015 ORDER DATED 08/08/2016, WHEREIN THE ITA T HAS HELD THAT NO COMMUNITY SOUGHT TO BE BENEFITED BY ASSESSEE SOCIET Y HAS SUFFICIENTLY BEEN IDENTIFIED BY A COMMON QUALITY OF A PUBLIC OR IMPERSONAL IN NATURE- MEMBERSHIP NOT RESTRICTED TO ONLY ADVOCATES- NO CHA RITABLE SOCIETY CAN FUNCTION TO HELP UNIDENTIFIED WHOLE CHUNK OF POPULAT ION- IT IS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY LIMITED NUMBER OF PERSONS, WHO ARE ALSO PAR T OF THE SOCIETY TO WHICH THE SOCIETY SHALL BE SERVING AND SUCH IDENTIFI CATION SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON CASTE, CREED, RELIGION ETC. THE LD AR OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF AHMADABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF FRIENDS OF WWB INDIA VS DIT(E) IN ITA NO. 2076/AHD/2014 ORDER DATED 14/08/2015. THE ASSESSEES WERE ASKED TO SUBMIT LATEST AUDITED ACCOUN TS. THESE APPLICANTS HAVE SUBMITTED AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014- 15 AND 2015-16. THESE ACCOUNTS SHOW THAT THESE SOCIET IES HAVE MADE PROJECT EXPENSES. THERE ARE PROGRAMME ACTIVITY EXPE NSES ALSO. THESE SOCIETIES HAVE INCOME FROM PROJECTS, INTEREST, AGRI CULTURE INPUTS AND ALSO CONTRIBUTION BY SELF HELP GROUPS. PRIOR TO FINALIZA TION REGARDING GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AND 80G OF THE ACT, THESE ACC OUNTS NEED A CLOSE SCRUTINY TO ARRIVE AT A JUST CONCLUSION. THEREFORE B Y CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE RESTORE THE ISSUES ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 14 REGARDING GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AND 80G (5) OF THE ACT TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E) FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECID E AFTER CONSIDERING THE LATEST ACCOUNTS OF THESE SOCIETIES AND CASE LAWS REL IED UPON. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RESTORE TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT(E). 8. NOW WE TAKE APPEALS OF TWO OTHER ASSESSEES BEING IT A NO. 187 & 188/JP/2016 AND 189 & 190/JP/2016 IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS WER E IN ITA NO. 185 & 186/JP/2016, THEREFORE, SIMILAR FINDINGS ARE ALSO G IVEN IN THESE APPEALS ALSO AS WERE IN ITA NO. 185 & 186/JP/2016. THEREFORE, ALL THE SIX APPEALS OF THE THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES/ TRUST/SOCIETIES A RE ALSO RESTORE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E). ACCORDINGLY, THESE FOURS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/03/2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR HKKXPAN (KUL BHARAT) (BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03 RD MARCH, 2017 *RANJAN ITA 185 TO 190/JP/2016 KRANTI MAHILA MANCH & ORS TWO ASSESSEES VS. CIT(E) 15 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANTS- (I) KRANTI MAHILA MANCH, LAXMANGARH. (II) JAGRATI MAHILA MANCH,THANAGAZI, ALWAR. (III) CHETNA MAHILA MANCH, PRATAPGARH. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE CIT(E), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 185 TO 190/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR