Maharashi Dayanand Education Society, New Delhi V. CIT, Faridabad

ITA 218/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4317 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S K SETH
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 10; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.218/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : - MAHARISHI DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, C/O S.K. SETH & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, M-91, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI 110 001. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K. SETH, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI K. RAVI RAMACHANDRAN, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, FARIDAB AD DATED 12 TH NOVEMBER, 2008 U/S 80-G OF IT ACT, 1961 READ WITH RU LE 11AA (5) OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ A S UNDER:- 1. ON THE FATS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW BY TREATING THE ACTIVITY OF THE SOCIETY UNDER THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY THEREBY APPLYING PROVISO TO SEC TION 2 (15) INSERTED W.E.F. 01.04.2009 WHEREAS THE SOLE AIM OF THE SOCIETY IS EDUCATION. 2. THE LEARNED CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF U/S 80-G. 3. ANY ADDITION, ALTERATION, DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED. ITA NO.218/DEL/2009 2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED. 2. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS ESTABLISHED ON 7 TH JANUARY, 1971. IT WAS CONTINUOUSLY ENJOYING EXEMPTION U/S 80G AND FOR RE NEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G, AN APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 26 TH MARCH, 2008. LEARNED CIT AFTER REFERRING TO THE AIMS AND OBJECTS O F THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE LISTED IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS REFUSE D TO GRANT RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G ON THE GROUND THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE STATED AT SERIAL NO. 1, 2 AND 4 TO 8 DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF ADVANCEMENT OF OTHER OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THEY ALSO DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF EDUCATI ON. LEARNED CIT HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT INTO THE ST ATUTE IN THE SHAPE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) BY THE FINANCE ACT , 2008 W.E.F. 1.4.2009 WHICH STIPULATES THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PUR POSE, IF IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EVEN AMEND THOSE OBJECTS THOUGH 11 MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY HAD PLAC ED ON RECORD A DECLARATION ON STAMP PAPER THE TEXT OF WHICH IS AS U NDER:- WE, THE MEMBERS OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF MAHARISHI DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, NEHRU GROUND, FARIDABAD, NIT, DO HEREBY DECLARE THE FOLLOWING ON SOLUMN AFFIRMATION:- THAT THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY, MAHARISHI DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, IS EDUCATION TO YOUNG PEOPLE IN PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. THE SOCIETY IS IMPARTING EDUCATION PRESCRIBED BY THE EDUCATION BOARDS IN THE CASE OF SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITY IN THE CASE OF COLLEGE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, MIND AND CHARACTER OF THE STUDENTS AT SCHOOL LEVEL AND COLLEGE LEVEL. THIS EDUCATION IS NOT FOR PURPOSE OF PROFIT. THE ABOVE DECLARATION IS MADE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TH E MEMBERS LIST OF THE SOCIETY IS IN DISPUTE AND THE MATTER IS ITA NO.218/DEL/2009 3 PENDING IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDI GARH DUE TO WHICH WE ARE UNABLE TO CONVENE THE GENERAL BODY MEE TING OF THE SOCIETY FOR MAKING NECESSARY AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY. IF AT ANY POINT OF TIME IT IS FOUND THAT THE SOCIETY HAS UNDERTAKEN ANY OTHER ACTIVITY THAN EDUCATION THE RENEWAL O F EXEMPTION, IF GRANT, MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED IMMEDIATE LY. 3. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR R ENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80 HAS BEEN DENIED. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEV ED, HENCE, IN APPEAL. 4. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD AT LENGTH ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SHORT ISSUE CULLED OUT FROM THEIR ARGUMENT WAS THAT WHETHER DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A WHICH RECOGNIZE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INSTITUTION CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, WH ETHER RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80-G SHOULD BE DENIED. FOR THIS PURPOSE , THE HEARING OF 19 TH APRIL, 2011 WAS ADJOURNED TO 20 TH APRIL, 2011 TO ENABLE LEARNED DR TO SUBMIT HIS SUBMISSIONS ON THAT ISSUE. ON 20 TH APRIL, 2011, LEARNED DR RELYING UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT, PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF CHA RITABLE ACTIVITY, HENCE, CIT WAS RIGHT IN DENYING RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING PURELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED AL ONG WITH THE APPEAL, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE ALSO RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNME NT BODIES AND UNIVERSITIES AND THE TOTAL STRENGTH OF THE STUDENTS OF T HE ASSESSEE IS 6550. HE SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM THOSE ACTIVITIES THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY OUT ANY OTHER ACTIVITY. THE AMENDMENT IN THE OBJECTS COULD NOT BE MADE FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT SIGNED BY 11 MEMBERS IN WHICH IT WAS CLEARLY STATE D THAT THE SOLE ITA NO.218/DEL/2009 4 OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY IS EDUCATION. THE SOCIETY IS IMP ARTING EDUCATION PRESCRIBED BY THE EDUCATION BOARDS IN THE CASE OF SCHOO LS AND UNIVERSITY, IN THE CASE OF COLLEGE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, SKILL AND MIND AND CHARACTER OF THE STUDENTS AT SCHOOL LEVEL AND COLLEGE LEVEL AND THIS EDUCATION IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRO FIT. THE MEMBERS LIST OF THE SOCIETY IS IN DISPUTE AND THE MATTER IS PEND ING IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DUE TO WHICH THEY ARE U NABLE TO CONVENE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE SOCIETY FOR MAKING NECE SSARY AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY. HE SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE SOCIETY CONSTITUTED OTHER THAN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENJOYING REGISTRATION U/S 12A CONTINUOUSLY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN TILL DATE AND IS SUBSISTING AND DURI NG SUBSISTENCE OF SUCH REGISTRATION THE RENEWAL U/S 80 G CANNOT BE DE NIED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. WE FI ND THAT THIS BENCH HAS ALREADY DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE VIDE ITS ORDER D ATED 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 IN THE CASE MAYO COLLEGE OLD BOYS ASSOCI ATION VS. DIT (E), NEW DELHI IN ITA NO.2010/DEL/2010. A COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED ON RECORD IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT DURING THE SUBSISTE NCE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A THE RENEWAL OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80G C OULD NOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY OU T CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), DELHI U/S 80 G (5 ) (VI) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 11AA OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSOCIATION FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE INCOME TAX ST ITA NO.218/DEL/2009 5 ACT, 1961 FOR THE YEAR W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 2009. 2. THAT THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), DELHI HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE MAYO COLLEGE OLD BOYS ASSOCIATION, BEING A VERY OLD AND ESTABLISHED ASSOCIATION FORMED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND CARRYING OUT VARIOUS ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION, ETC. 3. THAT THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE ESSENCE/LOGIC OF SEC 2 (15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND CONCLUDED HIS FINDING WITHOUT VERIFYING TH E COMPLETE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A SOCIETY REGIS TERED WITH REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI VIDE SL. NO.10776 OF 1980 W.E.F. 8 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1980. COPY OF CERTIFICATE IS FILED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION BY THE DIRECTO R OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 12A READ WITH SECTION 12AA (1) (B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 DATED 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 W.E.F. 1.4.1999 (COPY OF CERTIFICATE PLACED AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK). IT ALSO WAS GRANTED EXEM PTION U/S 80G INITIALLY FROM 27 TH MARCH, 2000 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2002 VIDE LETTER DATED 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2000, COPY OF SUCH LETTER IS PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAID EXEMPTION U/S 80G WAS RENEWED FOR THE PERIOD FROM 16 TH APRIL, 2003 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2006 VIDE LETTER DATED 14 TH OCTOBER, 2003, COPY OF SUCH LETTER IS FILED AT PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, RENEWAL U/S 80G WAS MADE VI DE LETTER DATED 31 ST OCTOBER, 2006 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2006 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2009 AND COPY OF SUCH LETTER IS PLACED AT PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AGAIN, RENEWAL APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT THE EXE MPTION U/S 80G IN RESPONSE TO WHICH LD. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TA X (EXEMPTION) HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR R ENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G. THE REASON FOR DECLINING SUCH RE QUEST IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD ADVERTISEMENTS AND GOLF TOURNAMENTS INCOME AND IT HAS ALSO INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE ON THIS ACTIVITY ONLY. THE DIRECTOR OF EXEMPTION HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CARRYING OUT SUCH ACTIVITY ONLY. ACCORDING TO LD. DIT (E), THE ASSESSEE THUS, IS ENGAGED IN THE AC TIVITY OF COMMERCIAL NATURE AND ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CO VERED BY SECTION 2(15), HENCE, IT WAS NOT A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AN D EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF G ENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, THEN ALSO, THE SAID ACTIVITY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2 (15) AND, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE H AS HELD THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY NO LONGER FALLS UNDER CHAR ITABLE HEAD, THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXEMPTED FR OM ITA NO.218/DEL/2009 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ONWARDS AND, IN THIS MANNER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G WAS DENIED. 3. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR TH AT MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS TO ENCOURAGE EDU CATION IN A BROADER SENSE. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ICAI ACCOUNTING RESEAR CH FOUNDATION VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIO N) 321 ITR 73 AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERV ATIONS:- BOTH THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRIBUTIONS/RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSOCIATION ARE OF INCIDENTAL ACTIV ITY CARRIED OUT. AFTER ENACTMENT OF PROVISO TO SECTION (15) IT IS HELD IN THE CASE OF ICAI BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI 321 ITR 73 (DELHI) THAT IT IS HARDLY POSS IBLE FOR A CHARITABLE TRUST TO WORK WITH NO SOURCE OF INCOME AS LONG AS THE USER OF THAT MONEY IS CHARITABLE, THEN THE EXEMPTION HAS TO BE GRANTED MERELY BECAUSE SOME REMUNERATION WAS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER FOUNDATION FOR UNDERTAKING THESE PROJECTS WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHAR ACTER OF THESE PROJECTS. THE AMENDED DEFINITIONS OF CHAR ITABLE PURPOSE WOULD NOT ALTER THESE POSITIONS. 4. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2 (15) AND HE ALS O RELIED UPON THE CIRCULAR NO.395 DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 1984 TO CONTEND THAT THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY ALSO FALLS WITHIN TH E AMBIT OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSOCIATIONS OR INSTITUTIONS ENGAGED IN THE PROMOTION OF SPORTS AND GAMES AND CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, EVEN IF IT IS NOT APPROVED U/S 10 (23) RELATING TO EXEMPTION FROM TAX OF SPORTS ASSOCIATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS HAVING THEIR OBJECT AS, THE PROMOTION, CONTROL AND REGULATION AND ENGAGEMENT OF SPECIFIED SPORTS AND GAME S. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR THAT GRANT OF RENEW AL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G, DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF 12AA CANN OT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY ON ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE HAS PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- NN DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT 246 ITR 452 (GUJ ) : AUTHORITY EXAMINING THE QUESTION WHETHER A FUND OR INSTITUTE IS ELIGIBLE TO BE CERTIFIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80G IS NOT TO ACT AS AN A.O.; ONCE THE APPLICANT WAS REGISTERED U/S 12A AND WAS GRANTED APPROVAL U/S 80G (5) AND ALSO A RENEWAL THE REAFTER, CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING FURTHER RENEWAL OF AP PROVAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME OF THE APPLICANT TRUST WAS L IKELY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR NOT COMPLYING WI TH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 11. SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT 278 ITR 262 (P & H): IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE A PPLICATION U/S 80G(5), THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY BY CIT EXTENDS TO ELIG IBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO EXEMPTION UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS REF ERRED TO IN ITA NO.218/DEL/2009 7 THAT SUBSECTION BUT NOT TO ACTUAL COMPUTATION UNDER THE ACT, REGISTRATION OF AN INSTITUTION U/S 12AA BY ITSELF I S A SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE INSTITUTION IS CREATED OR ESTABLISHE D FOR CHARITABLE/RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. GAUR BRAHMAN VIDYA PRACHARINI SABHA VS. CIT (2010) 129 TTJ (DELHI) 627 : IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE T RUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA, IT IS TESTIMONY TO T HE FACT THAT THE TRUST IS ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. ASSESSEE SOCIETY FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLIS HING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, NOT FOR ANY PARTICULAR COM MUNITY OR COST, HAVING BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTIO N 12 AA AND ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SUBSECTION 5 OF SECTION 80G HAVING BEEN FULFILLED ASSESSEES SOC IETY IS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT IT IS CHARGING THE FEE F OR EDUCATION. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT SCOPE OF ENQUIRY UNDER SECTIO N 80G EXTENDS TO ELIGIBILITY OF INCOME AND NOT TO ACTUAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE ACT. 5. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE DONATION OF ` 3,50,000/- WHICH CLEARLY FALLS WI THIN THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DONATION IS GIVEN FOR TH E PURPOSE OF EDUCATION ONLY. HE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID DONATION O F ` 3,50,000/- WAS ADVANCED TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES AND V IDE LETTER DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 IT WAS INFORMED TO LD. DIT (E) AND CO PY OF SUCH LETTER IS PLACED AT PAGE 11 AND 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SL.NO. BENEFICIARY CHQ. NO. AMOUNT (IN `) 1. MAYO COLLEGE AJMER-305008 434287 1,00,000 2. SISTERS OF THE PEOPLE, LAJPAT 434280 1,00,000 BHAWAN, LAJPAT NAGAR 434284 1,00,000 NEW DELHI 110 024. 3. CHAUDHARI TRUST, 434286 50,000 29, HANUMAN ROAD, N DELHI. TOTAL 3,50,000 6. THUS, HE PLEADED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY BEEN REJECTED BY DIT (E). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PAS SED BY DIT (EXEMPTION). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT C ARRY OUT ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, HENCE, HIS CLAIM FOR RENEW AL U/S 80G WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE DIT (E). 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE CERTIFICATE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12A TREATING IT AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION IS SUBSISTING AND HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAW N TILL DATE. IF IT IS SO, THEN, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, R ENEWAL OF ITA NO.218/DEL/2009 8 EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) COULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSE E AND THE CASE RELIED UPON BY LD. AR AND REPRODUCED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THIS ORDER FULLY SUPPORTS SUCH CONCLUSION. THEREF ORE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT THE CHARITABLE STATUS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED U/S 12A HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. THEREF ORE, WE DIRECT LD. DIT (E) TO GRANT THE RENEWAL TO THE ASSESSEE U /S 80G. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. 7. THE ISSUE BEING THE SAME, FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIO NED ORDER, IT IS HELD THAT RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G HAS WRONGLY BEEN REFUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES IS ALL OWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.04.20 11. SD/- SD/- [K.G. BANSAL] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 20.04.2011. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES