SINDHU YOUTH ASSOCIATION, RAIPUR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

ITA 29/RPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0155 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 43; 13; 119; 22

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायप ु र न्यायपीठ, रायप ु र IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश स ू द, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़विया, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.29/RPR/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Sindhu Youth Association, Sindhu Bhawan, Sector-4, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Vs CIT(Exemption), Bhopal PAN No. : AAKTS 3401 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Smt. Laxmi Sharma & Shri Vimal Agrawal, CAs राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR स ु निाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(E), Bhopal, dated 24.12.2018 for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. The sole ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the action of the CIT(E) in rejecting the application of the assessee filed for exemption u/s.80G of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society running charitable organization registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, which was granted vide order dated 28.03.2008, mainly engaged in charitable activities for the welfare of society including relief of poor, Blood donation and blood infusion camps for Thalassemia patients and medical relief for the poor, etc. The office of the society is situated at Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). The assessee society had filed an application for exemption u/s 80G of the Act in form No. 10G on 07/06/2018. However, ITA No.29/RPR/2019 2 the CIT(A) observed that the assessee society is indulged in commercial activities and running for the benefit of a particular community and had rejected the application filed u/s.80G of the Act on the grounds that society has violated the proviso to section 13(1)(b) and 2(15). 4. Against the rejection of application of the assessee for registration u/s.12AA of the Act by the CIT(E), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR before us submitted his written synopsis which reads as under :- (A) when the CIT has granted registration u/sl2AA after examining the genuineness of the activities of the Trust, it is not proper for the CIT to reject the application of the trust for the benefit of exemption u/s80G(5) by holding that the activities of the trust are not genuine; the registration granted u/sl2A(a) wef. 1-4-07, order dt.28-3- 08, passed by the CIT, continues hitherto, the Id CIT(E) has erred in rejecting the assessee’s application u/s80G(5); at the time of granting the application u/s80G, what is to be examined is whether the trust is registered u/sl2A and the objects of the trust; so far as the aspect of income is concerned, the same can be very well examined by the AO at the time of framing assessment; since the assessee-Trust was registered u/sl2A and such registration continued, the assessee fulfilled the conditions prescribed u/s80G(5)(i); once registration u/sl2A is given, the registration u/s80G can be denied if the activities are not genuine; the Id CIT(E) nowhere has doubted the genuineness of activities of assessee-Trust; the Id CIT(E) has erred in denying the approval/ registration u/s80G(5)(vi) by applying sec2(15) first proviso, on the premise that the assessee-Trust has involved in commercial activities, while, registration u/sl2AA dt.28-3-08, assessee- Trust is engaged in ‘charitable activities’ for general public utility not for profit motive; more so, on the same activities, the revenue (i.e., ITO, Exe-1, Raipur) has allowed the exemption u/sll(2) in scrutiny assessment u/sl43(3) dt. 17-12-18 for AY16- 17; thereafter, proposal for withdrawal of registration u/sl2A by ITA No.29/RPR/2019 3 the ITO(E)-l, Raipur dt.22-11-18 has been dropped by the Id CIT(E), Bhopal vide order dt.28-12-20; Sant Girdhar Anand Parmhans Sant Ashram (2018) (P&H) dt. 16-5-18 Seth Vinod Kumar Somani Charitable Trust (2018) (P&H) dt. 15-5-18 Dignity Education Society (2022) (Raipur-Trib)dt. 9-6-22 Sri Guru Nanak Devji Religious & Charitable (2021) (Ctk-Trib) dt.24-5-21 Ratan Chand Chhattibhai Seva Samiti (2020) (Lkw-Trib) dt. 16-12-20 Samekit Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Sansthan (2018) (Lkw-Trib) dt.16-11-18 Dr Gyanendra Goel Foundation (2018) (Agra-Trib) dt.8-3-18 Pujya Shri Jalarambapa & Matushri Virbaima (2015) (Guj) dt.l 1-11-14 Hiralal Bhagwati (2000) (Guj) dt. 18-4-00 (B) Activities are not in commercial lines (trade, business); not for a particular community; it is for general public utility for charitable purposes: Activities are not changed in earlier & subsequent years; Revenue has accepted it as charitable activities/ not for profit motive/ not to earn profit; Revenue has allowed exemption u/s. 11(2) in assessments made u/sl43(3) in subsequent years in AY16-17; Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association : (2021) (Mum-Trib) dt.15-9-20 St John Ambulance Association (2021) (Del-Trib) dt.3-12-21 Badhte Kadam (2020) (Raipur-Trib) dt. 1 -7-19 Prem Prakash Mandal Sewa Trust (2021) (Raipur-Trib) dt. 12-8-21 Radhasoami Satsang (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) Running a charitable organization for general public (not for private purposes) and not the individual interest of some person or persons or private profit and private gain, at nominal rent/ charges which is necessary for its running & maintenance; Marwari Panchayat Vastu Bhandar (2015) (Gau-Trib) dt.27-1-15 Sengunthar Thirumana Mandapam (2006) (Mad HC) dt.28-2-06 Ragunath Das Parihar Dharmshala (1986) (Raj) dt. 16-7-85 Paramhans Ashram Trust (2009) (Raj) dt. 17-2-09 the dominant object- the assessee-Trust has been set up for a charitable purpose for general public; the activities are neither in the nature of trade, commerce or business; the activities are not with any motive to earn profit; the surplus is only incidental and ancillary to the dominant object, viz., running charitable activities for general public; the assessee is carrying on its charitable activities, which are in the nature of advancement of the object of general public utility and is not carrying on any commercial activity; Circular No.11 of 2008 issued by the CBDT that the proviso to sec2(15), which was inserted by FA, 2008, was directed to prevent the unholy practice of pure trade, commerce and business entities from masking their activities and portraying them in the garb of an activity in the object of a general public utility but was not designed to hit at ITA No.29/RPR/2019 4 those institutions, which had the advancement of the objects of general public utility at their hearts and were charity institutions; All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society (2021) (Del-Trib) dt. 14-10-21 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (2021) (Bang-Trib) dt.28-9-21 Indian Olympic Association (2018) (Del-Trib) dt.19-7-18 Fragrance & Flavours Association of India (2017) (Mum-Trib) dt.8-12-17 India Trade Promotion Organization (2015) (Del HC) The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (2013)35taxmann.com 140(Del HC) Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust (2014) (Guj) dt. 15-1-14 Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust (2013) (Ahd-Trib) dt.7-6-13 Indian Chamber of Commerce (1975) (SC) overruled by Surat Art Silk (1979) (SC) Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust (1975) (SC) disapproved by Surat Art Silk (1979) (SC) 6. Apart from the above written synopsis, ld. AR has also filed paper book, containing pages 1 to 119 and submitted that there is no finding in the entire order of CIT(E) vis-à-vis the genuineness of the activities carried put by the assessee-society. Therefore, the activities of the assessee-society is charitable in nature and not for any particular community. It was also submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that while rejecting the application of the assessee for exemption u/s.80G of the Act, the CIT(E) also directed to initiate the proceedings for cancellation u/s.12A of the Act, however, the same has been dropped by the CIT(E), Bhopal, vide order dated 28.12.2020. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that considering the objects and activities of the society, the assessee society is entitled for exemption u/s.80G of the Act. 7. On other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of ld. CIT(E) and submitted that as the assessee society is engaged in commercial activities and also running community centre for the benefit of a particular ITA No.29/RPR/2019 5 communities and not for charitable purposes, therefore, the CIT(E) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for registration. 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material evidence available on record. On careful perusal of the order of the CIT(E), we found that the assessee has filed an application for exemption u/s.80G of the Act, that has been rejected by the CIT(E) holding that assessee is engaged in the commercial activities and is not involved in any charitable activities. During the course of hearing, ld. AR drew our attention to the balance sheet of the assessee society as on 31.03.2016, copies of which are placed in the paper book at pages 22 to 32 and byelaws of the assessee society, copies of which are placed in the paper book at pages 14 to 17. The assessee has also filed evidences of nature of work done by the society, copies of which are placed in the paper book at pages 43 to 57 regarding free medical treatment to the poor and at concessional rate for general public, distribution of stitching machines with free of cost, Blood donation camps, free dental camps, providing books, school bags and uniforms to poor students on free of cost. etc.. Earlier looking to the activities of the assessee-society, the registration u/s.12AA of the Act was granted to the assessee vide order dated 28.03.2008. Ld. AR also drew our attention to pages 18 to 21 of the paper book, which are the copies of assessment order dated 17.12.2018 passed in the case of assessee for A.Y.2016-2017 and submitted that the activities of the assessee-society are not changed earlier and in subsequent years. The revenue has also accepted that the assessee is involved in charitable ITA No.29/RPR/2019 6 activities and not for profit motive or not to earn profit, whereby the exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act has been allowed. On perusal of the relevant documents, we found that the assessee is also having registration u/s.12A of the Act, which has not been disputed by the ld. DR before us. Even the AO while framing the assessment for the assessment year 2016-2017 has accepted all the expenses shown by the assessee, which were duly verified and examined and assessed the income of the assessee-society at Nil. Further on careful perusal of the impugned order as well as the assessment order framed for A.Y.2016-17, we do not see any observation regarding ingenuineness of the activities of the assessee- society for granting approval u/s.80G of the Act. It is a fact that the assessee is continuing with the registration granted u/s.12A of the Act. It is also on record that while rejecting the application of the assessee for approval u/s.80G of the Act, the CIT(E) also proposed for cancellation of registration already granted, however, the same has been dropped by the CIT(E) vide order dated 28.12.2020, copy of which is placed on the paper book at page 1, because the activities of the assessee is for general public utility for charitable purposes. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that when the CIT(E) has not doubted the genuineness of the activities of the assessee-society, then not granting approval for exemption sought u/s.80G of the Act, is not just and proper. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sant Girdhar Anand Parmhans Sant Ashram, (2018) 408 ITR 79 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has ITA No.29/RPR/2019 7 held that if the registration u/s.12A of the Act was in existence, there was no logic in denying approval u/s.80G(5)(vi) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court are as under :- 6. Admittedly, in the present case, the application for grant of approval of under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act was filed by the respondent-assessee on 11.05.2015 before the CIT(E). The said approval was denied on the ground that the assessee was spending more than 5 per cent of the total receipts for religious purposes as pooja expenses and telecast expenses. The CIT(E) had also accorded approval under Section 12AA of the Act on 30.11.2015 itself as is evident from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had recorded that the assessee had demonstrated that spending more than 5% of total receipts for religious purposes as pooja expenses and telecast expenses was justified. Further, as noticed by CIT(E) in the order dated 30.11.2015 denying approval to the assessee under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act, the aims and objects of the assessee as per Memorandum of Association are noticed to be as under:- "i). The main objects of the society to create and spread spiritual awakening among the common masses: ii). To spread teachings of great Indian Saints. iii) organise gathering of the people desirous to be benefitted from the spiritual teachings. iv) Publicise teachings and philosophy of great saints through press etc. v). Extend financial assistance to the poor, destitute for their economic upliftment and education etc." Accordingly, it was recorded by the Tribunal that since assessee had been granted exemption under Section 12AA of the Act which was in existence and in case of any violation, the same was subject to variation/withdrawal 4 of 5 by the CIT(E), there was no logic in denying approval under Section 80G 5(vi) of the Act. We do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. Needless to say, in case, in subsequent years, the revenue is satisfied that the activities of the respondent-assessee are not qualified for charitable purposes, it shall be open for the department to initiate action for cancellation of registration under Section 12AA of the Act and also for passing appropriate orders regarding approval granted under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act in accordance with law. 9. Reliance can also be placed on the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dignity Education Society, ITA ITA No.29/RPR/2019 8 No.31/RPR/2019, order dated 09.06.2022, wherein the Tribunal para 13 has held as under :- 8. The ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that merely there is no sign board and inability of Director of Society to submit the audit report and the surplus accumulated by the assessee cannot be sufficient ground for rejection for approval u/s 80G of the Act. Since the assessee trust is already fulfilling all the requirement of section 12AA of the act and enjoying the benefit of section 12AA of the Act. 9. The reason placed while rejecting approval u/s. 80(G) of the Act are not sufficient to deny the recognition. Otherwise, the assessee trust is fulfilling all the conditions for registration under section 80(G) of the Act. The reasons based on which the recognition denied are not in accordance with the law. The ld. AR also produced before us the assessment order for Assessment Year 2016-17 wherein the ld. AO has granted benefit of registration u/s 12AA and there is no such adverse finding in the assessment order. 10. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted a copy of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajmala Education Society [ 65 DTR 307 ] held that merely because there are some surplus with the respondent, this should not be a ground to deny the registration under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. 11. The ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee trust also placed before us the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has observed that when the ld. CIT(E) has granted registration u/s 12AA after examination genuineness of activities of trust and the registration granted has not been revoked or cancelled than it is not proper for ld. CIT(E) to reject the application of trust for benefit of exemption u/s 80G by holding that the activities of the trust were not found eligible for approval u/s 80G of the Act. The relevant finding of the Co-ordinate Bench decision relied upon by the ld. AR is reproduced hereinbelow. “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in present grounds is with respect to rejection of application u/s. 80G of the Act. Before us, the Ld. A.R. has submitted that assessee has been granted registration u/s. 12AA of the Act and the registration continues till date and the aforesaid registration has not been cancelled by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The aforesaid contention of the Ld. A.R. has not been controverted by the Revenue. We find that the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Gyanendra Goel Foundation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) after relying on the decision of Hon’ble ITA No.29/RPR/2019 9 Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiralal Bhagwati Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) in similar circumstance has held that when the Commissioner of Income Tax has granted registration u/s. 12AA after examining genuineness of activities of Trust, and the registration granted has not been revoked or cancelled then it is not proper for Commissioner of Income Tax to reject application of Trust for benefit of exemption u/s. 80G by holding that the activities of the Trust were not genuine. 7. Before us, the Revenue has not pointed out any contrary binding decision nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Agra Bench of Tribunal has been set aside by the higher judicial forum. We are therefore, following the decision of Agra Bench of Tribunal and for similar reasons hold that in the present case the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in rejecting the application of assessee. We therefore set aside the order of LD. CIT and direct the granting of approval to assessee u/s. 80G of the Act. Thus the grounds of the assessee are allowed.” 12. The decision of Co-ordinate Bench where the facts are similar and the ld. DR did not object to any of the argument raised by the ld. AR of the assessee and he has merely relied upon the order of ld. CIT(E) and also heavily relied upon the observations of the Inspector Income Tax, assessing officer and JCIT while giving findings to the ld. CIT(E). 13. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench and arguments of ld. AR of the assessee we hold that the assessee is eligible for approval of 80G of the Act since their 12AA registration is granted and continue. Even the assessment proceedings for A. Y. 2016-17 completed with out any adverse observation on the issue and the activities of the trust are in accordance with the condition prescribed. Therefore, following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench. We set aside the order of ld. CIT(E) and direct ld. CIT(E) to grant an approval to the assessee u/s 80G of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. Further, the ITAT Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ratan Chand Chhattibhai Seva Samiti in ITA No.570/Lkw/2019, order dated 16.12.2020, wherein the Tribunal allowed the issue in favour of the assessee after holding as under :- ITA No.29/RPR/2019 10 4. We have heard the rival parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that it is undisputed fact that the assessee was enjoying the registration u/s. 12A of the Act vide order dated 08.02.2019 and a copy of such order is placed at P.B. pg. 20. The copy of such registration states that the society has been registered u/s. 12A for religious and other objects of general public utility. The ld. CIT(E) on the basis of this clause as contained in the registration certificate u/s. 12A held that assessee had not carried out any activities relating to achievements of the objects for which it was granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act. From the perusal of main objects of the assessee as contained in memorandum of association at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 we find that these are for establishment and promotion of hospitals medical and healthcare institutions and to establish maintain and run colleges and schools for primary and technical scientific institutions. The ld. CIT(E) while rejecting the application u/s. 80G of the Act ignored the objects as contained in the object clause of memorandum of association whereas he himself has noted that the assessee had spent an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- towards health and further an amount of Rs.22,300/- was spent on education and Rs.58,540/- as help to poor. These all expenditure represents expenditure for charitable purposes which is mentioned in the object clause of the assessee. Though the registration granted u/s. 12A mentions the purpose of registration as religious or general public utility but the object clauses of the assessee clearly shows that main object of the assessee were promotion of health and imparting of education. Therefore, we do not agree with the findings of ld. CIT(E) in dismissing the application of the assessee. Moreover, we find that once registration u/s. 12A is given the registration u/s. 80G can be denied if the activities are not genuine. The ld. CIT(E) nowhere has doubted the genuineness of activities of assessee. The ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of Samekit Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Sansthan vs. CIT(E) (Supra) vide order dated 16.11.2018 has held para 7 as under: "7. Heard. In 'Hiralal Bhagwati' (Supra), rightly relied on by the assessee, it has been held that once registration 12A of the Act stands granted, the application u/s 80G(5) cannot be rejected. The Agra Bench of the ITAT has followed this legal position vide order dated 08.03.2018, passed in 'Dr. Gyanendra Goel Foundation, Maa Saraswati Hospital Vs. CIT(Exemptions)', in ITA No. 173 /AGR/2017, (authored by one of us, the Vice President). Therein, it has been held as under: "5. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. At the outset, it is seen that registration u/s 12AA(1)(b)(i) of the I.T. Act was granted to the appellant Institution vide order dated 05.04.2016 (APB, 16-18). It is not disputed that this registration has hitherto not been revoked or cancelled. The ld. CIT(E) has observed, interalia, that approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act is not a mechanical process, wherein the according of registration u/s 12AA of the Act at one end would result in the issuance of approval u/s ITA No.29/RPR/2019 11 80G(5) at the other. Consistent judicial opinion in this regard, however, is otherwise. The issue is, as such, no longer res integra. 6. In "Hiralal Bhagwati vs. CIT", 246 ITR 188 (Guj.), while holding that once registration u/s 12AA of the Act was granted, the order rejecting the application u/s 80G(5) of the Act was liable to be quashed, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the registration of a charitable trust u/s 12A of the Act is not an idle or empty formality; that this is apparent from the provisions of Section 12A; that it requires that not only an application should be filed in the prescribed form, setting out the details of the origin of the trust, but also the names and addresses of the trustees and/ or Managers should be furnished; that the CIT has to examine the objects of creating the trust as well as an empirical study of the past activities of the applicant; and that the CIT has to examine that it is really a charitable trust or Institution eligible for registration. The Hon'ble High Court took into account the submission that once registration u/s 12A of the Act is granted, a grant of benefits under the act cannot be denied; that the ITO was not justified in refusing the benefits under the act which would otherwise accrue under the registration; that if there was no registration, the Revenue would have been justified in submitting that the benefit cannot be granted, but where the application for registration is submitted and the registration has been granted, the benefit cannot be denied. 7. "Hiralal Bhagwati" (Supra) was followed by the Agra ITAT in "Maa Bhagwati Samagra Utthan Trust vs. CIT" vide order (APB, 72- 75) dated 18.03.2011, in ITA No. 293/Agr/2009, holding that when the CIT has granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act after examining the genuineness of the activities of the Trust, it is not proper for the CIT to reject the application of the trust for the benefit of exemption u/s 80G(5) of the Act by holding that the activities of the trust are not genuine. 8. In "N.N. Desai Charitable Trust vs. CIT", 246 ITR 452 (Guj), it was held, interalia, that while considering the certification of the Institution for the purpose of Section 80G, inquiry should be confined to finding out if the Institution satisfies the prescribed conditions as mentioned in Section 80G; that it is well settled that at the time of granting the application u/s 80G, what is to be examined is whether the trust is registered u/s 12A and the objects of the trust; that so far as the aspect of income is concerned, the same can be very well examined by the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment; and that the Authority examining the question whether a trust/Institution is eligible to be certified for the purposes of Section 80G is not to act as an AO. 9. "N.N. Desai", (Supra) was followed by the Pune ITAT in "B.P.H.E. Society vs. ITO", in ITA No. 111/PN/2010, vide order dated 30.08.2011, holding that when the CIT is to examine an application seeking recognition u/s 80G, he is not required to act as an AO and decide upon the claim of the assessee in respect of his assessment of income; that the actual assessment of the assessee ITA No.29/RPR/2019 12 and its actual liability to tax are matters to be decided only in the assessment proceedings; and that since the assessee was (in that case, as herein also) registered u/s 12A of the Act and such registration continued, the assessee fulfilled the conditions prescribed u/s 80G(5)(i) of the Act. 10. "N.N. Desai" (Supra) has also been followed in "Marathi Vidyan Parishad Nashik Vibhag vs. CIT, Nashik", (APB, 95-102), by the Pune Tribunal, vide order dated 20.05.2016, in ITA No. 1465/PN/2014. 11. "N.N. Desai" (Supra) was also followed in "CIT vs. Pujya Jalarambpa & Matushri Virbaima Charitable Trust" (APB, 84-88), by the Rajkot Tribunal in ITA No. 249/Rjt/2014, vide order dated 30.05.2014. This order of the Tribunal stands approved by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in "CIT vs. Pujya Shri Jalarambapa & Matushri Virbaima Charitable Trust" 55 taxmann.com 52 (Rjt). 12. "Pujya Shri Jalarambapa"(Supra) rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has been followed by this Bench in "M/s Samajik Pragya Prasar Samiti, Agra vs. CIT(E)" (APB, 76-83) vide order (authored by one of us, the ld. AM) dated 16.01.2018, in ITA No.343/Agr/2016. 13. No decision contrary to the above case laws has either been referred by the ld. CIT(E) in the impugned order, or cited before us." 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the judicial precedent, we direct the ld. CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee u/s. 80G(5) of the Act. 11. Undisputedly, the assessee is continuing with the registration u/s.12A of the which also supports the claim of the assessee. In case of any violation finds by the CIT(E), the same would be subject to the withdrawal of the registration already granted u/s.12A of the Act. Moreover, the department is also satisfied with the genuineness of the activities of the assessee while framing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17. Considering the overall factual aspects of the matter and the consistent judicial opinion in this regard, we are of the view that the CIT(E) is not justified in rejecting the application of the assessee-society for the benefit of exemption u/s 80G(5) of the Act. ITA No.29/RPR/2019 13 Thus, we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee and direct the CIT(E) to grant exemption sought by the assessee-society u/s.80G of the Act. We order accordingly. 12.. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/ 2022. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायप ु र/Raipur; ददनाांक Dated 29/07/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.(on tour) आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशाि ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायप ु र/ITAT, Raipur 1. अिीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, रायि ु र/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावित प्रयत //True Copy//