Wisdom Foundation , Hyderabad V. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 1976/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3121 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMY
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B , HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1976/HYD/2018 A.Y. 2018 - 19 WISDOM FOUNDATION, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAATW 4454 C VS. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C.P. RAMASWAMY, AR REVENUE BY: SHRI Y.V.S.T. SAI, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 04/03/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 /0 5 /2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E), ANDHRA PRADESH, TELANGANA & ODISHA IN F.NO.CIT(E)/HYD/24(09)/12A & 80G/2017 - 18/401, DATED 24/03/2018 PASSED U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2018 - 19. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SE VEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITS APPEAL AND THEY ARE EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E) IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT, IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CA SE. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(E) GROSSLY ERRED IN DENYING THE APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT BY AN ORDER OF EVEN DATE THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5) (VI) ALSO. 3. THE LD. CIT(E) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G, AND CONSEQUENTLY GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST IS NOT ELIGIBLE FO R APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. CIT(E) GROSSLY ERRED IN TREATING THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES OF IMPARTING EDUCATION IN VEDIC STUDIES) AS RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AS HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT TRUST ARE IN THE DOMA IN OF EDUCATION. HE OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. CIT(E) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO EXPENDITURE INCURRED (IN THE APPLICATION OF DONATIONS RECEIVED) TOWARDS ANY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND CONSEQUENTLY ERRED IN DENYING APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. 6. FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MATY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR MODIFY THE AB OVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE T RUST REGISTERED U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10G ON 14/9/2017 SEEKING APPROVAL U/S. 8 0 G(5) (VI) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (E) REJECTED THE APPLICATION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE - TRUST WAS ONLY CONDUCTING RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ORGANIZING BHAGAVAD - GITA CLASSES, BHAJANS A ND PROPAGATING VEDIC ACTIVITIES. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED STATING THAT THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE DO ES NOT PERTAIN TO ANY SPECIFIC RELIGION AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT ARE NOT VIOLATED. HE 3 FURTHER ARGUED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTING BHAGAVAD - GITA CLASSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF GENERAL PUBLIC AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RELIGIOUS ACTIVI TY OF A SPECIFIC RELIGION. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE CIT (E) MAY BE DIRECTED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 10G OF THE RULES. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BY STATING THAT THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIFIC RELIGION AND THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPROVAL. IT WAS THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (E) MAY BE SUSTAINED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PREDOMINANT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTING CLASSES AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS THE SAME WAS RS. 1,93,616/ - . FURTHER, THE LD. AR HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE CLASSES CONDUCTED WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE PREACHING OF BHAGAVAD - GITA. FURTHER, FROM THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.22 TO 30 IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ORGANIZING EVENTS OF DEVOTIONAL SONGS, IMPARTING KNOWLEDGE OF VEDANTA ETC. THUS, FROM THE ACTIVITIES C ARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS APPARENT THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO A SPECIFIC RELIGION WHICH IS IN VIOLATION O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80G(5)(III) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPROVAL 4 U/S. 80G(5) OF THE ACT. SINCE I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE MAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIFIC RELIGION WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5) OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT (E). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 07 TH MAY , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 07 TH M AY , 2021. OKK COPY TO: - 1) M/S. WISDOM FOUNDATION C/O. DR. C.P. RAMASWAMI, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102 & 303, GITANJALI APTS, PLOT NO. 108, SRINAGR COLONY, HYDERABAD 500 073. 2) THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), ANDHRA PRADESH, TELANGNA & ODISHA, 2 ND FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAWAN, BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , HYDERABAD . 4) THE ADDL. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , HYDERABAD. 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE