ICRW Group Gratuity Trust, New Delhi V. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

ITA 2244/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3295 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority; Set aside
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.2244/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2018-19 ICRW GROUP GRATUITY TRUST C-59, GROUND FLOOR, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI PAN NO. AABTI3510L VS. CIT (EXEMPTION) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 27/02/2018 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT (E) ] APPELLANT BY MS. HASNEETA, CA RESPONDENT BY MS. SUNITA SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 27.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 .10.2021 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTR ATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE CIT (E) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE CIT (E) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE APPELLANT ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND CONDUCTE D TO SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN WHICH IS THE ITS SELF A SECTION 25 COMPANY UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12 A OF THE ACT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR MOD IFY THE AFORESAID GROUND AND CRAVES LEAVES TO FILE ADDI TIONAL GROUNDS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT M/S INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN LTD. (ICRW ) IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION WITH THE OBJECT OF PROMOTING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITH WOMENS FULL PARTICIPATION AND IS INCORPORATED AS A LIMITED COMPANY UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE SAID COMPANY IS REGISTERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 12A A AND SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF PAYMENT O F GRATUITY ACT, 1972 ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ICRW AND THEREFORE TO PROTECT THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF ITS EM PLOYEES, THE ICRW SETUP THIS TRUST NAMELY ICRW GROUP GRATUI TY TRUST I.E. THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRUST APPLIED FOR ONLI NE APPLICATION ON 23/08/2017 IN FORM NO.10A BEFORE THE L D. CIT(E) FOR SEEKING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED TRUST DEED AND ANOTHER DOCUMEN TS AS DESIRED BY THE LD.CIT(E). AFTER EXAMINATION OF OBJE CTS OF THE TRUST, THE LD.CIT(E) OBSERVED THAT TRUSTS AIMS AN D OBJECTIVES IS ONLY FOR THE WORKER/EMPLOYEE OF THE ICRW AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE FOR GENERAL CHARITABLE PURPOSE . THE LD. CIT(E) ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT (I) THE ICRW IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION AND ALREADY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A AND 80 G OF THE ACT. (II) THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN FORMED FOR BENEFIT OF I TS EMPLOYEES. THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY WILL BE SET ASIDE BY THE ICRW FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE GRATUITY TO TH E EMPLOYEES OF THE ICRW AND THE INTEREST RECEIVED O N THE SAID AMOUNT SHALL ALSO BE PAYABLE TO THE SAID EMPLOYEES. THERE WILL BE NO INCOME BESIDES INTEREST IN THE ASSESSEE TRUST. (III) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION (1971) 82 ITR 704 (SC) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT TO S ERVE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT OBJE CT SHOULD BE TO BENEFIT THE WHOLE OF THE MANKIND OR AL L PERSONS IN A PARTICULAR COUNTRY OR STATE AND IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE INTENTION TO BENEFIT SECTION OF T HE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SPECIFIED INDIVIDUAL IS PRESENT. (IV) ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL BHAGWATI VS CIT (2000) 246 ITR 188 (GUJ) WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT TRUST FORMED FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEE SHALL ALSO BE ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF 80G AND 12A REGISTRATION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTION) AND SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT OF GRAT UITY IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF A COMPANY AND CREATING A TRUST FOR DISCHARGING SAID STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF A COMPANY CANNOT BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. A COMPANY BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTING TO GRATUITY FUND HAS DELEGATED ITS RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING GRATUITY TO EMPLOYEES AT THE TIME OF THEIR SUPERANNUATION AND THUS THE GROUP GRATUITY FUND TRUST, IS DISCHARGING DUTY OF COMPANY NAMELY ICRW W HICH IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ANY WELFARE OR MEDICAL FACILITY TO THE EMPLOYEES, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL BHAGWATI (SUPRA) . SHE DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF AHMEDAB AD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN SAID CASE THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST WAS FOR THE WELFARE OF S ECTION OF THE SOCIETY, BUT IN INSTANT CASE INSTEAD OF ACTIVITY OF WELFARE OF EMPLOYEES, IT IS A STATUTORY DUTY OF THE IC RW, IS BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECOR D. AS PER SECTION 12AA(1)(B) OF THE ACT, FOR REGISTERI NG THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY MUST S ATISFY ABOUT THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND GENU INENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES. AS PER SECTION 12AA(1)(A)(II) OF T HE ACT, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY MAY SATISFY ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE OF SUCH REQUIREMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE BY THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AS MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING ITS OBJECTS. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND THAT OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS ONLY FOR THE BENE FIT OF WORKER/EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY WHO HAS CREATED THE T RUST AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE FOR THE GENERAL CHARITABLE CAUSE . 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF TRUST DEED BEFORE US, WHICH IS AVAILABLE FROM PAGE 6 TO PAGE 18 OF THE PAPERBO OK. 7. ON PERUSAL OF THE TRUST DEED WE FIND THAT THE MANAGI NG DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ICRW, IS THE MANAGING TRUSTE E OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. ON PAGE 8 OF THE PAPERBOOK, THE OB JECT OF THE TRUST HAVE BEEN RECORDED AS UNDER: 3. OBJECTS OF THE TRUST: A) TO PROTECT AND HEDGE TIRE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF AIL THE WORKERS/EMPLOYEES WHICH ARE WORKING FOR ICRW WITH T HE OBJECT OF MAKING PAYMENT TO THEM OF THE GRATUITY AM OUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT; B) TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNT OF GRANT, DONATION OR THE SHARE OF AMOUNT FROM ICRW FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING PAYMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE GRATUITY AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT; C) TO CONTRIBUTE THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNT OF THE FUN D REQUIRED FOR CREATING A CORPUS THAT CAN BE UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING PAYMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE GRATUITY' AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT; D) TO ENTER INTO ARRANGEMENTS/AGREEMENTS WITH THE APPROVED INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR INSURING THE PAYME NT OF THE GRATUITY AMOUNT TO THE EMPLOYEES E.) TO DO ALL SUCH ACT{S)WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL TO THE AFORESAID OBJECTS. 8. IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD AS UNDER: IT IS WELL SETTLED BY NOW AND THE HIGH COURT ALSO HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN THAT VIEW THAT AN OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO A SECT ION OF THE PUBLIC IS AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. TO S ERVE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE OBJECT SHOULD B E TO BENEFIT THE WHOLE OF MANKIND OR ALL PERSONS IN A PARTICULAR COUNTRY OR STATE. IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE INTENTION TO BENEFIT A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SPECIFIED INDIVIDUAL I S PRESENT. THIS COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS V. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE(L) OVERRULED THE VIEW OF BEAUMO NT C.J. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. GRAIN MERCHANTS' A SSOCIATION OF BOMBAY(2) ON THE POINT. IT WAS, HOWEVER, OBSERVE D THAT THE SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY SOUGHT TO BE BENEFITTED MUS T BE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINED AND IDENTIFIABLE BY SOME COMMON QUALITY OF A PUBLIC OR IMPERSONAL NATURE. WHERE THERE WAS NO C OMMON QUALITY UNITING THE POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES INTO A CLASS THE TRUST MIGHT NOT BE REGARDED AS VALID. IN THE VARIOUS ORDERS THE CLAUSE RELATING TO THE BENEFICIARIES HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY SET OUT. IN THE PETITION OF APPEAL DATED OCTOBER 7, 1968 THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SET OUT AND WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMMUNITY IT IS STATED, 'RANA COMMUNITY MEANS NATIVES OF AHMEDABAD ONLY AND THE OTHER COMMU NITY BROTHERS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMUNITY AS PER OLD RULES O F THE COMMUNITY STAYING IN AHMEDABAD'. IT IS COMMON GROUN D THAT THE WORD ' OLD RULES' DO NOT REPRESENT THE CORRECT TR ANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL WORD IN GUJARATI WHICH IS RIWAJ MEANING CUSTOM. THE LEARNED JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT ALSO, WHO ARE CO NVERSANT WITH THAT LANGUAGE, HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THA T THE CORRECT RENDERING OF THE AFORESAID WORD IS CUSTOM OR U SAGE. THAT IS WHY ACCORDING TO THE HIGH COURT THE DEFINITI ON COMPRISES TWO CLASSES OF MEMBERS OF RANA CASTE RESI DING IN AHMEDABAD, ONE CLASS CONSISTING OF THOSE WHO ARE NA TIVES OF AHMEDABAD WHILE THE OTHER CLASS CONSISTS OF SUCH PE RSONS WHO ARE ADMITTED BY THE RANA CASTE ACCORDING TO THE OLD C USTOM OR USAGE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE REASON WHICH PREVAILED W ITH THE HIGH COURT FOR TREATING THE SECOND CLASS AS NOT BEIN G UNITED WITH THE FIRST CLASS BY A COMMON CHARACTERISTIC OR ATTRIBUTE WAS THAT ITS MEMBERS HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE COMMUNIT Y ACCORDING TO THE OLD CUSTOM OR USAGE AND THAT THE ENT RY OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS CLASS INTO THE RANA CASTE RESIDING IN AHMEDABAD WAS DEPENDENT ON THE DECISION OF THE CASTE TO (1) 55 I.T.R. 722. (2) 61.T.R. 427. ADMIT THEM. WE ARE ALTOGETHER UNABLE TO CONCUR IN T HE APPROACH OR THE CONCLUSION OF THE HIGH COURT ON THE ABOVE PO INT. WE MAY USEFULLY REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF LORD GREENE M.R. IN RE COMPTON, POWELL V. COMPTON & OTHERS(L). THE MAST ER OF ROLLS DECLARED THAT NO DEFINITION OF WHAT WAS MEANT BY 'A S ECTION OF THE PUBLIC' HAD, SO FAR AS HE WAS AWARE, BEEN LAID D OWN. BUT HE INDICATED THAT THE TRUST OF A PUBLIC CHARACTER I S ONE IN WHICH THE BENEFICIARIES DO NOT ENJOY THE BENEFIT WHEN THE Y RECEIVE IT BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CHARACTER AS INDIVIDUALS BUT BY VIRTUE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP OF A SPECIFIED CLASS THE COMMON QUALITY, UNITING POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES INTO THE CLASS BEING ESSENT IALLY AN IMPERSONAL ONE. THIS COMMON QUALITY HE SAID WAS 'DE FINABLE BY REFERENCE TO WHAT EACH HAS IN COMMON WITH THE OT HERS AND THAT IS SOMETHING INTO WHICH THEIR STATUS AS INDIVI DUALS DOES NOT ENTER'. ANDREW, L.C.J. ACCEPTED THIS STATEMENT OF LAW WITHOUT HESITATION IN TRUSTEES OF THE LONDONDERRY P RESBYTERIAN CHURCH HOUSE V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE(2). WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHER THE M EMBERS OF THE RANA CASTE WHO ARE NOT NATIVES OF AHMEDABAD BUT WHO COME TO RESIDE THERE AND ARE ACCEPTED AS MEMBERS OF T HAT CASTE ACCORDING TO ITS USAGE AND CUSTOMS CAN BE SAI D TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WHICH IS AN IMPERSONAL ONE DEPENDENT ON THEIR CONDITION AS MEMBERS OF THE RANA COMMUNITY. WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND HOW SUCH MEMBERS OF THE RANA CASTE CA N BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THAT CASTE B Y CONSIDERATION OF THEIR PERSONAL STATUS AS INDIVIDUALS . AS A MATTER OF FACT THE PREDOMINANT CONTENT AND REQUIREME NT OF THE CLAUSE DEFINING 'BENEFICIARIES' IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE FACTUM OF THEIR BELONGING TO THE RA NA COMMUNITY OF AHMEDABAD. THE COMMON QUALITY, THEREFO RE, UNITING THE POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES INTO THE CLASS CONSISTS OF BEING MEMBERS OF THE RANA CASTE OR COMMUNITY OF AHM EDABAD WHETHER AS NATIVES OR AS BEING ADMITTED TO THAT CAST E OR COMMUNITY UNDER CUSTOM OR USAGE. THE MERE FACT THAT A PERSON OF THE RANA COMMUNITY WHO IS NOT AN ORIGINAL NATIVE OF AHMEDABAD HAS TO PROVE HIS CREDENTIALS ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM AND USAGE OF THAT COMMUNITY TO GET ADMITTED IN TO THAT COMMUNITY CANNOT INTRODUCE A PERSONAL ELEMENT. IN OP PENHEIM V. TOBACCO SECURITIES TRUST CO. LTD. & OTHERS(L) TH E TRUSTEES WERE DIRECTED TO APPLY CERTAIN INCOME IN PROVIDING F OR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN OF EMPLOYEES OR 'FORMER EMPLOYE ES' OF A BRITISH LIMITED COMPANY OR ANY OF ITS SUBSIDIARY OR ALLIED COMPANIES. IT WAS HELD BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS BY A MAJ ORITY THAT THOUGH THE GROUP OF PERSONS INDICATED WAS NUMER OUS, THE NEXUS BETWEEN THEM WAS EMPLOYMENT BY PARTICULAR, EM PLOYERS AND ACCORDINGLY THE TRUST DID NOT SATISFY THE TEST OF PUBLIC (1) [1945] CH. 123. (3) [1951] A.C. 297. (2) 27 T.C. 431. 750 BENEFIT REQUISITE TO ESTABLISH IT AS CHARITABLE . THIS IS WHAT LORD SIMONDS OBSERVED - 'A GROUP OF PERSONS RELATIONSHIP WHICH TAKES A GROU P NEXUS BETWEEN THEM IS THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP TO A SI NGLE PROPOSITUS OR TO SEVERAL PROPOSITI, THEY ARE NEITHE R THE COMMUNITY NOR A SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY FOR CHARIT ABLE PURPOSES'. THE PERSONAL ELEMENT OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WHICH TAKES A GROUP OUT OF SESTION OF THE COMMUNITY FOR CHARITABL E PURPOSES IS OF THE NATURE WHICH IS, TO BE FOUND IN CASES OF THE AFORESAID TYPE. WE CANNOT POSSIBLY DISCOVER A SIMILAR ELEMENT OF PERSONAL NATURE IN THE MEMBERS OF THE RANA COMMUNITY WHO SET TLE IN AHMEDABAD AND HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE RANA COMMUN ITY OF THAT PLACE AS MEMBERS OF THAT COMMUNITY. AS REGA RDS THE ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH PERSONS AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUN ITY OR CASTE, ACCORDING TO CUSTOM AND USAGE, IT IS WELL KNO WN THAT WHENEVER A QUESTION ARISES WHETHER A PERSON BELONGS TO A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY OR CASTE THE CUSTOM OR USAGE P REVAILING IN THAT COMMUNITY MUST PLAY A DECISIVE AND VITAL PART. T HAT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AN ELEMENT WHICH WOULD DETRACT F ROM THE IMPERSONAL NATURE OF THE COMMON QUALITY. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AND THE ANSWER RETURNED BY THE HIGH COURT IS DISCHARGED. THE MATTERS ARE REMITTED TO THE HIGH COURT FOR RETURNING THE ANS WER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED AFTER DETERMINING THE,- OTHER POIN TS WHICH WERE LEFT UNDECIDED. THE PARTIES SHALL BEAR THEIR OW N COSTS IN THESE APPEALS. APPEALS BY CERTIFICATE (I.E. CAS. 21 46-2148 OF 1968) ARE DISMISSED, THE CERTIFICATE BEING DEFECTIVE FOR WANT OF REASONS. 9. IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL BAGWATI (SUPRA), THE TRUST WAS CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES OF THE 16 INSTI TUTIONS WITH THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING AID IN CASE OF SICKNESS AND DISABLEMENT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) HELD THAT AN OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC IS AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY ON THE GROUN D THAT IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A RESTRICTED GROUP OF E MPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY ICRW. HOWEVER, WE FIND SOME MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT TRUST HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN DISCHARGING THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF THE COMPANY IC RW OF MAKING GRATUITY PAYMENT TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. BUT I N THIS REGARD THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ACTIVITIES ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT BY THE TRUST, SOURCES OF FUNDS AND HOW THE SAME ARE DISTRIBUTED TO THE EMPLOYEES, WHETHER BY WAY OF CREATING THE TRUST, THE COMPANY IS GETTING SOME BENEFIT OF SAVING OF MONEY, WHETHER ANY ACTIVITY OF WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN MAKING GRATUITY PAYMENT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE TRUST ETC . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO ITS ACTIVITIES BEFORE US. THEREFORE, EXAMINING THOSE ISSUES NEED ENQUIRY AT THE END OF THE LD.CIT(E). IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE LD. CIT(E) FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH GUJRAT OF IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL BHAGWATI (SUPRA). WE ACCORDINGLY ORDER SO. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GR OUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.10.2021. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21.10.2021 *NEHA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI SL. NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 21.10.2021 2. DATE ON WHICH THE DRAFT OF ORDER IS PLACED BEFOR E THE DICTATING MEMBER: 21.10.2021 3. DATE ON WHICH THE DRAFT OF ORDER IS PLACED BEFOR E THE OTHER MEMBER: 21.10.2021 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT OF ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: 21.10.2021 5. DATE OF WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.10.2021 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER RECEIVED AFTER HAV ING BEEN SINGED/PRONOUNCED BY THE MEMBERS: 21.10.2021 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON TH E WEBSITE OF ITAT: 21.10.2021 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 1.10.2021 9. DATE ON WHICH FILES GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: