M/s Hindu Shiksha Samiti, Kurukshetra V. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 307/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 30721514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R CHHABRA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT MRS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 307/CHD/2015 (UNDER SECTION 80(G)(5)(VI) OF THE ACT) M/S HINDU SHIKSHA SAMITI, VS THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), SANSKRITI BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH SALARPUR ROAD, KURUKSHETRA (HR). PAN NO.: AABTH2321L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.R.CHHABRA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.12.2015 : O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH DATED 4.2.2015, WHEREBY AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G (5)(VI) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION). 2 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT. IT WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDE R SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX, KARNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2003. THE APPR OVAL UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO GRANTED BY THE CIT, KARNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 3.7.2003 UPTO 31.3.200 6. THEREAFTER NO APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO IT. THE ASSE SSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SE CTION 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT IN FORM NO. 10A BEFORE THE CI T, KARNAL AS ON 08.08.2014. HOWEVER, THE CIT BY HIS O RDER DATED 04.02.2015 REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR APPRO VAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN H IS ORDER THE CIT HAS OBJECTED TO THE SAID APPROVAL ON MULTIP LE COUNTS. THE FIRST REASON FOR REJECTION GIVEN BY HI M IS THAT THE AIMS & OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ARE NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN TH E MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. SPECIFIC OBJE CTION WAS RAISED AGAINST THE OBJECTS & ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY MENTIONED AT POINT (III) UNDER THE AIMS & O BJECTS OF THE SOCIETY, WHICH READS AS UNDER: III) GEETA KE ADHYAN KA VISHESH PRABHAND KARNA TATHA GEETA KI SHIKSA KO VIDHYARTHIYON KE DAINIK JEEVAN KE VAYVAHAR ME LANE KE LIYE AAGRAH KARNA. 3. RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UPPER GANGA SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS CIT REPORTED 227 ITR 578, HE HELD THAT ONE OF THE OBJEC TS OF 3 THE SOCIETY AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, BEING WHOLLY ON SUBSTANTIALLY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE, AS PER EXPLANATI ON 3 OF SECTION 80G, NO APPROVAL CAN BE GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE. 4. FURTHER, AFTER ANALYZING THE DEFECTS IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2014-15, THE CIT OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED VERY NOMINAL AMOUNT ON GRANTS WHEREAS THE ASSETS HAVE INCREASED MANIFOLD. THE ASSESSEE IS ACCUMULATING MORE & MORE SUM OF ITS SUR PLUS FOR CREATING ASSETS ONLY. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND OF RS. 69.25 LACS, RS. 1.56 CRORES & RS. 1.58 CRORES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 , 2012-13 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. RELYING ON THE JUDG EMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 1 77 TAXMANN 326, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE A SOCIE TY OR BODY IS MAKING SYSTEMATIC PROFIT, EVEN THOUGH THAT PROFIT IS UTILIZED ONLY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT COULD CLAIM EXEMPTION. IN THIS VIEW, HE DEN IED THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. 5. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE CIT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAD MERELY RECEIVED DONATION O F RS. 7,522/- & RS. 7,70,443/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, NOT EVEN A SINGLE PENNY HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF DONAT ION DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GETTING ANY DONATION, IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE PURPOSE OF OBTAIN ING 4 APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT DOES NOT H AVE ANY MEANING. 6. FURTHER, THE CIT CALLED FOR A REPORT FROM THE I TO (EXEMPTIONS), AMBALA, WHO DID NOT RECOMMEND, THIS C ASE FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT IN HIS REPORT. IN HIS REPORT DATED 30.01.2015, HE SPECIFIC ALLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER INCURRED 85% O F THE CURRENT YEAR RECEIPTS TOWARDS REVENUE EXPENDITURE NOR OPTED FOR ACCUMULATION UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE A CT. 7. KEEPING ALL THE ABOVE ASPECTS IN MIND, THE CIT REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR APPROV AL UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT IS D ENYING THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT ON THE BA SIS OF THE FACT THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AIMS & OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONTAIN GEETA KA ADHYAYAN ETC. IS NOT A S PER LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT STUDY OF GEETA AND TO RE QUEST TO ADOPT THE TEACHINGS OF GEETA IS NOT A RELIGION A CTIVITY BECAUSE TEACHING AS PER GEETA IS NOT A RELIGION BUT A MORAL WAY TO IMPROVE LIFE. MOREOVER, AN AMENDMENT B Y INTRODUCTION OF CLAUSE 5B TO SECTION 80G OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1999 W.E.F. 01.04.2000, WH EREBY IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IF ANY EXPENDITURE INCURR ED DURING THE YEAR BEING RELIGIOUS IN NATURE AS PER CL AUSE (II) 5 OF SUB SECTION (8) AND EXPLANATION, IS NOT EXCEEDIN G 5% THE TOTAL INCOME IN THAT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SHALL B E DEEMED TO BE AN INSTITUTION OR FUND FOR WHICH PROVI SION OF SECTION 80G OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY. SINCE NO EXPEN DITURE MORE THAN 5% OF THE INCOME HAS BEEN INCURRED ON RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT AP PROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED. AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY CIT ON THE CASE OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF QUEENS EDUCA TION (SUPRA), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE WAS RENDERE D IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) O F THE ACT AND NOT FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE A CT. FURTHER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CA N O. 5168 OF 2008, 2919 TO 2923 OF 2015 IN QUEENS EDUCA TION SOCIETY HAVE SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN QUEENS EDUCATION (SUPRA) AND APPROVED THE CASE RENDERED BY PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PINE GROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST VS UOI 32 7 ITR 273 (P&H). REGARDING THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE I TO (EXEMPTION) IN HIS REPORT AS REGARDS APPLICATION OR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS COMPLE TED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE INCOME RETURNED AT NIL WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF G ROSS RECEIPTS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. NECESSARY EVIDENC E IN THIS REGARDS WERE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. A CHART 6 DEPICTING THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR VARIOUS YEAR S WAS FILED, WHICH READS AS UNDER: A.Y. GROSS RECEIPTS EXPENDITURE PERCENTAGE EXPENDITURE INCURRED 2011-12 21048961 22559853 107% 2012-13 48632175 46821510 96% 2013-14 45785562 52457885 115% 2014-15 54900485 56739152 103% 9. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ORPAT CHAR ITABLE TRUST VS CIT(2002) 256 ITR 690 (GUJ). 10. IN VIEW OF ALL THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE A CT BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE FIRST REASON FOR WHICH THE CIT DENIED APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF SOCIETY BEING GE ETA KE ADHYAN KA VISHESH PRABHAND KARNA TATHA GEETA KI SHI KSA KO VIDHYARTHIYON KE DAINIK JEEVAN KE VAYVAHAR ME LA NE KE LIYE AAGRAH KARNA . THIS OBJECT MEANS TO MAKE SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE STUDY OF GEETA AND TO REQUEST THE 7 STUDENTS TO APPLY THE TEACHINGS OF GEETA IN THEIR D AY-TO- DAY LIFE. BEFORE ANALYZING THIS OBJECTION IT IS P ERTINENT TO REFER TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER : IN THIS SECTION CHARITABLE PURPOSE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PURPOSE THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE OF WHICH IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE FURTHER, SECTION 80G(5B) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER : 80G(5B) : NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (5) AND EXPLANATION 3, AN INSTITUTION OR FUND WHICH INCURS EXPENDITURE, DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE FOR AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING FIVE PER CENT OF ITS TOTAL INCOME IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN INSTITUTION OR FUND TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION APPLY. 13. FROM THE COMBINED READING OF THESE TWO PROVISIONS, IT BECOMES VERY CLEAR THAT ANY ENTITY W OULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURP OSES IF IT INCLUDES ANY OBJECT THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY T HE WHOLE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE. FURTHER , THE SUB-SECTION (5B) PUTS A RIDER TO IT, IN A WAY GIVIN G MEANING TO THE TERM WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHO LE BEING MORE THAN 5% OF ITS TOTAL INCOME. THIS SUB- SECTION HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE STATUTE BY FINANCE ACT, 1999, W.E.F. 1.4.2000. 14. IN VIEW OF THESE, WE HAVE TO ANALYZE WHETHER T HE SAID OBJECT IS OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN EXPLANA TION 3, IF SO, WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE ON THE SAME IS MORE THA N 5% 8 OF THE INCOME AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (5B) TO SE CTION 80G OF THE ACT. THE OBJECT ON WHICH THE CIT HAS CA ST AN APPREHENSION, IS WITH REGARD TO TEACHINGS OF GEETA, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO BE TAUGHT TO THE STUDENTS AND THEY ARE TO BE CONVINCED TO FOLLOW GEETA IN THEIR DAILY LIVES. IN OUR OPINION, THIS IS NOT AN OBJECT WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIA LLY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. IN OUR VIEW, GEETA IS NOT A R ELIGIOUS BOOK. IT IS NOT RELATED TO A PARTICULAR RELIGION A ND RATHER, IT IS MORE CONCERNED WITH THE LIFESTYLE OF PEOPLE. TEACHINGS OF GEETA ARE NOT CONFINED TO A PARTICULAR RELIGION AND ARE IN FACT THESE TEACHINGS ARE BENEFI CIAL TO THE MANKIND AS A WHOLE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE CIT THAT THESE TEACHINGS ARE CONFINED TO THE STUDENTS OF A PARTICULAR RELIGION. THIS IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE CIT THAT ONLY CHILDREN OF A PARTICULAR RELIGION ARE TO BE ADMITTED IN THE SCHOOLS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT AS IF THE RITUALS AND ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY A PARTI CULAR RELIGION IS BEING TAUGHT TO THE STUDENTS, AS GEETA DOES NOT TEACH HOW TO FOLLOW A PARTICULAR RELIGION, RATHER I T TEACHES HOW TO LIVE LIFE AND SHOWS THE WHOLE MANKIND THE GR EATER MEANING OF LIFE. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF UPPER GANGA SUGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) REFERRED TO BY THE CIT IS DISTINGUISHABLE, AS IN TH AT CASE, THE IMPUGNED OBJECT WAS TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND TO GRANT AND/OR AID TO PUBLIC PLACES OF WORSHIP AND PR AYER HALLS THIS KIND OF OBJECT IS DEFINITELY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE, WHILE IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS ONLY THE TEACHINGS OF GEETA, WHICH CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH 9 ESTABLISHING ETC. OF A RELIGIOUS PLACE. HERE, NO S UCH RELIGION IS BEING PROPAGATED OR ENCOURAGED, ONLY TH E TEACHINGS OF GEETA ARE BEING SPREAD TO THE STUDENTS , THAT TOO IN A VERY HUMBLE MANNER, BY MAKING AGRAH, MEA NS REQUEST. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THIS OBJECT OF THE AS SESSEE DOES NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF EXPLANATION 3 OF S ECTION 80G OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW, WE NEED NOT TO GO I NTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXPENSES INCURRED OF THIS NATU RE ARE MORE THAN 5% OF THE INCOME OR NOT. HOWEVER, WE WOU LD LIKE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE CASE OF UPPER GANGA S UGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE CIT WAS THAT RELATING TO A PERIOD PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION ( 5B) TO SECTION 80G OF THE ACT, APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1.4.2000. 15. THE NEXT OBJECTION RAISED BY THE CIT WHILE REFUSING TO GRANT APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED SOME LAND DUR ING THE LAST THREE YEARS AND ALSO IT IS EARNING PROFITS , RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUP RA), HE DENIED TO GRANT APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF TH E ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, WE SEE THAT THE J UDGMENT OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) WAS WITH REG ARD TO ALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT, COMPLETE CODE HAS BEEN PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT, WHICH IS GRANTED BY THE CIT, WHILE EXEM PTION LIKE SECTION 11 OR SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT ARE G IVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS UNDER 10 ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, THE JUDGMENT OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) WAS, L ATER ON, REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CA NO. 5168 OF 2008. THE VARIOUS DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE CI T IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2014-15 AND THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF GRANTS IS NOMINAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS CREATING ASSE TS, IS OF NO RELEVANCE AT THE TIME OF GRANTING APPROVAL UN DER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THESE ARE THE ISSUES TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE , THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DEN IED ON THIS GROUND ALSO. 16. THE NEXT OBJECTION RAISED BY THE CIT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH RECEIVED DONATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13, THEREAFTER NO DONATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY IT AND IN CASE NO DON ATION IS RECEIVED, THERE IS NO NEED TO GET APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. WE FIND CONTRADICTION IN THIS STAN D OF THE CIT. SECTION 80G OF THE ACT GRANTS DEDUCTION TO TH E DONOR WHO DONATES TO THE ENTITIES APPROVED UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. ONCE A TRUST OR SOCIETY IS APPROVED UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT, THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS AVAILED BY THE DONOR AND NOT BY THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION GETTING T HE DONATION. THE PEOPLE, THEREFORE, TEND TO GIVE MORE DONATIONS TO THE ENTITIES WHO ARE APPROVED UNDER SE CTION 80G OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A TRUST 11 APPROVED UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT, MAY BE THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS OF NOT GETTING MUCH DONATION. NOT T O MENTION, IF THE CIT DOES NOT GRANT APPROVAL NOW ONW ARDS, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT GET ANY DONATION IN FUTURE. F URTHER, THE AMOUNT OF DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE A CRITERIA TO GRANT APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF T HE ACT. IT IS NOT THE AMOUNT OF DONATIONS WHICH WILL DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT OR NOT. WE FIND THIS OBJECT ION OF THE CIT TOTALLY MISPLACED. 17. THE LAST OBJECTION FOR GRANTING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT, RAISED BY THE CIT IS BASED ON A REPORT FROM THE ITO(EXEMPTION), WHEREBY HE CLAIMS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER INCURRED 85% OF ITS INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, NOR HAS IT OPTED FOR ACCUMULAT ION UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, WE SEE AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011-12 MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHIC H IS ANNEXED WITH THE PAPER BOOK, ON THE PERUSAL OF WHIC H, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF ITS GROSS RECEIPTS AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN ST ATED IN THE ORDER ITSELF. FURTHER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF CHA RT FOR VARIOUS YEARS, WE SEE THAT TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 4-15, THE ASSESSEE IS INCURRING EVERY YEAR, EXPENDITURE M ORE THAN 85% OF ITS GROSS RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, THE STA ND OF THE CIT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HOWEVER, IN THIS R EGARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT EVEN THIS FACTOR IS NO T 12 RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ORPAT CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS NOT OUT OF PLACE, WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN CL EARLY HELD THAT THE CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT WOULD HAVE A BEARING ONLY AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT OF THE TRUST AND COULD NOT BE A MATERIAL CONSIDERATION FOR REFUSAL TO GRANT APPROVAL UNDER S ECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND THIS OBJ ECTION RAISED BY THE CIT, TO BE AS PER LAW. 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE CIT TO GRA NT APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESS EE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22 ND DECEMBER, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH