Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi V. ITO (E), ROHTAK

ITA 308/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9559 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MITHALESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Capital receipt; Set aside
• Section: 12; 56(2); 12A; 12AA; 143(2); 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.308/Del./2020 Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana-125033 PAN AADTM4901H C/o. M/s. RRA TAXINDIA D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 110049 [vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Rohtak, Haryana. PIN – 125 033. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Somil Agarwal & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates For Revenue : Shri Mithalesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2022 ORDER This appeal by Assessee-Trust has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon, dated 03.10.2019 relating to A.Y. 2014-15. 2 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of ld. AO in bringing to tax corpus donation of Rs.10,42,750/- as alleged income of the appellant trust and that too without any basis, material or evidence available on record and by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.10,42,750/- on account of corpus donation by treating it as alleged income of the appellant trust, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 2348 and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. During the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the very outset, drawing our attention towards various Judgments and Orders including the Order of ITAT, Pune Bench, Pune in the case of ITO vs., Serum Institute of India Research Foundation dated 19.02.2018 in ITA.No.621 /Pun/2016 for the A.Y. 2005- 2006 and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of A.O. in making addition of Rs.10,42,750/- on account of corpus fund by treating the same as alleged income of the appellant trust. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee vehemently pointed out that in view of Order of ITAT, Pune Bench, Pune in the case of ITO vs., Serum Institute of India Research Foundation dated 19.02.2018 (supra), the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to amount of corpus donation is not taxable even if the assessee is not enjoying 4 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. registration under section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the relevant A.Y. 2014-15. 4. Replying to the above, the Ld. Sr. D.R. supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that the application for grant of registration was made by the appellant only after filing of return of income and also after receipt of notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the present A.Y. 2014-15. He further pointed that since the appellant received order of Ld. CIT(E) granting registration under section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. the A.Y. 2015-16, therefore, the claim of assessee cannot be allowed for the present A.Y. 2014-15, for which the assessee was not having effective registration under section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Placing rejoinder to the above, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in the case of Serum Institute of India Research Foundation (supra) the Coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal concluded that even if the assessee is not enjoying the registration under section 5 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment year, then also the corpus funds received by the assessee-trust cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee-trust for want of registration under section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. On careful consideration of rival submissions from the order of ITAT, Pune Bench, Pune in the case of ITO vs., Serum Institute of India Research Foundation dated 19.02.2018 (supra), an identical issue was raised before me for adjudication which was decided in favour of assessee with the following observations and findings : “18. We have heard the parties and perused the details/facts, submissions and case laws furnished by the Assessee and the Revenue. There is no dispute on the basic facts that the assessee is registered Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and however, it is unapproved by the CBDT as required u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act. Further, it is also not registered u/s.12A/12AA of the Act and therefore, the immunity provided under section 11(1)(d) of the Act or the exemption and 10(21) of the Act is not available to the assessee Trust. The fact relating to Corpus-specific- donations of Rs.3 crores is also undisputed. 19. Considering the above, we need to examine the non- taxability of the corpus donations in assessee's case despite inapplicability of the provisions of section 12(1)/11(1)(d)/section 35/10(21) etc. On the face of it, we find the provisions of section 2(24)(iia) of the Act apply to the case of the assessee as demonstrated by the Ld. DR before us. However, there exists no favourable decision to the assessee. Further, we find these decisions relate to the period of post-amendments to section 6 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. 12(1)/11(1)(d) or section 56(2) of the Act etc. One of such decision of the Tribunal of Mumbai Benches, i.e. Chandraprabhu Jain Swetamber Mandir Vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 245 (Mumbai- Trib.), is relevant and it has exclusively dealt with this issue in detail. Of course, this decision has not considered the amended the provisions of section 56(2) of the Act which governs the taxing of certain gifts despite its capital nature. 20. We have perused the said decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chandraprabhu Jain Swetamber Mandir Vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 245 (Mumbai-Trib.). It is also a case of unregistered trust u/s.12A/12AA of the Act. The question before the Tribunal in this case is allowability of exemption to the Corpus Trust when the Trust is not registered under the income-tax provisions. The Tribunal elaborated on various decisions and concluded by stating that the Corpus Donations are not to be taxed even if the Trust is not registered u/s.12A/12AA of the Act. The Corpus donation with specific direction is a significant factor in granting relief by the Tribunal. Contents from Para 9 onwards of the order of the Tribunal are relevant. In the said order, the Tribunal considered various decisions viz., the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO (Exemptions) Vs. Smt. Basantidevi & Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust - ITA No.5082/Delhi/2010 order dated 19-01-2011, ITO Vs. Gaudiya Granth Anuved Trust - ITA No. 386/Agra/2012 order dated 02-08- 2013, M/s. Pentafour Software Employees Welfare Foundation Vs. ACIT - ITA Nos. 751 and 752 /Mads/2007 and others, Shri Shankar Bhagwan Estate Vs. ITO 61 ITD 196 (Cal.). The ratio of R.B. Shriram Religious and Charitable Trust Vs. CIT 172 ITR 373 is relevant and the same was also discussed in the said order. At the end of the discussion, the Tribunal held that Voluntary Contributions received by the assessee towards the Corpus cannot be brought to tax in view of their capital nature. 21. For the sake of completeness of the order, we proceed to extract the operational paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal here as under : "9. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including the case laws relied on. We have observed that the assessee is a 7 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. religious charitable trust duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act,1950. The assessee could not produce registration u/s12A/12AA of the Act and hence it could be presumed that the assessee is not registered u/s 12A/12AA of the Act as the onus was on the assessee to bring on record the evidences to prove its contentions which it want court to believe and consequently to seek immunities and protections granted to a registered trust. The assessee has received corpus donations to the tune of Rs.4,55,446/- during previous year relevant to the assessment year which are being given with specific directions by the donors to be applied towards specific purpose for which the respective funds were created . This is an admitted position between the parties and there is no dispute with respect to this proposition. The details of the corpus donations are as under: 1. Building fund - Rs. 50,000/- 2. Dev Dravya fund - Rs. 2,92,066/- 3. Gyan Fund - Rs. 41,541/- 4. Veya Vacha fund - Rs. 1,809/- 5. Akhand Deepak fund - Rs. 12,951/- 6. Dadawadi fund - Rs. 25,020/- 7. Jiv Daya fund - Rs. 18,063/- 8. Ayambil fund - Rs. 13,996/- ---------------- Total - Rs. 4,55,446/- ---------------- These above stated specific donations given by the donors to be utilized for specific purposes cannot be diverted for any other purposes by the assessee and are credited to the respective funds in the Balance Sheet , and utilization thereof is also reflected from these specific funds. We have gone through the case laws relied upon by the assessee as set out above and have observed that the Courts/Tribunals have taken a consistent view that these corpus donations are held to be capital receipts being capital in nature and are 8 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. not taxable despite the fact that trust is not registered u/s 12A/12AA of the Act. In ITO(E) v. Basanti Devi & Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust in ITA no. 5082(Del.) 2010 for assessment year 2002-03 vide orders dated 19-01-2011, ITAT, Delhi relying on ITAT, Delhi decision in the taxpayers own case for assessment year 2003-04 whereby the Tribunal held that the amount received by the tax-payer trust from its settler, towards infrastructure fund, was not taxable in the hands of the tax-payer trust, despite the fact that the tax-payer trust is not registered u/s 12A of the Act, and consequently the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal. The revenue went in appeal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue against the Tribunals order for assessment year 2003-04 in ITA no. 927/2009 vide orders dated 23-09-2009 in Basanti Devi & Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust. Similar view was taken by ITAT, Agra in the case of ITO v. Gaudiya Granth Anuved Trust reported in (2014) 48 taxmann.com 348 (Agra-Trib) whereby Tribunal held as under: "This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated February 24, 2012 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Agra for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : '"1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that voluntary contributions (whether corpus donations or general donations) received by a charitable trust are income as defined vide section 2(24)(iia) of the Act and corpus donations are exempt from tax under section 11(1)(d) only if assessee is registered under section 12A/12AA of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in placing reliance upon the appellate decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in I.T.A. No. 5082/Del/2010 in the case of ITO (Exemption) v Smt. Basanti Devi and Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust for the assessment year 9 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. 2003-04, which in turn is now under challenge in the hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Agra being erroneous in law and on facts be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves to amend the grounds of the appeal stated above and when need for doing so may arise." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-trust has shown donation of Rs. 68,50,000 from BBT, Mumbai. The Assessing Officer computed the assessment on total income of Rs. 68,70,000 rejecting the assessee's contention that donation received towards the corpus of the trust. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 68,50,000 out of the addition of Rs. 68,70,000 made by the Assessing Officer as under: "I have also examined the term corpus fund and corpus donation as it is being generally used with respect to a trust. A corpus fund denotes a permanent fund kept for the basic expenditures needed for the administration and survival of the organisation. The corpus fund is generally not allowed to be utilised for the attainment of the purposes but the interest/dividend accused on such fund can be utilised as well as accumulated. Such fund can also be used for creation of capital asset or property of the trust from which income can be generated. Corpus fund are generally created out of corpus donation. A donation will be treated as corpus donation only if it is accompanied by a specific written direction of the donor. In the absence of any written direction of the donor, a contribution of grant cannot be transferred to corpus fund. In the present case, the donor, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust has very categorically in his letter, while providing money to the appellant trust, has mentioned the amount of Rs. 68,50,000 as corpus donation and such amount has been used by the trust for purchasing the land and giving money on interest as loan. Therefore, the amount of Rs.68,50,000 shown by the appellant trust has been found to be in the nature of corpus donation. 10 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. Now, the question arises whether such corpus donation is taxable as income or not even in the cases in which the trust is not registered under section 12AA because for those trusts which are registered under section 12AA, exemption to corpus donation has been provided as per provision of section 11(1)(d). For such trust to which registration under section 12AA has not been provided, its taxability is required to be decided with reference to the scheme of the Act as held in the decision of Pentafour Software Employees Welfare Foundation v. Asst. CIT (supra). In both the decisions referred by the learned authorised representative, in case of Pentafour Software Employees Welfare Foundation v. Asst. CIT, it has been held that corpus donation being in the nature of capital receipt are not chargeable to income-tax. The decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Basanti Devi and Sri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust for both assessment years 2002-03 and 2003A-04 are annexed with this order as annexure A-1 in which reference to the decision in the case of Pentafour Software Employees Welfare Foundation is also given. I have also come across another decision of the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of Shri Shankar Bhagwan Estate v. ITO [1997] 61 ITD 196 (Cal) in which, the taxability of corpus donation has been examined in the light of section 12 read section 2(24)(iia) of the Income-tax Act and in this decision, it has been held as under : “So far as section 2(24)(iia) is concerned, this section has to be read in the context of the introduction of the present section 12 it is significant that section 2(24)(iia) was inserted with effect from April 1, 1973 simultaneously with the present section 12, both of which were introduced from the said date by the Finance Act, 1972. Section 12 makes it clear by the words appearing in parenthesis that contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution shall not be considered as income of the trust. The Board's 11 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. Circular No. 108 dated March 20, 1973 is extracted at page 1277 of Volume I of Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income-tax, 9th edn. In which the inter-relation between section 12 and section 2(24) has been brought out. Gifts made with clear directions that they shall form part of the corpus of the religious endowment can never be considered as income. In the case of R. B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 373 (SC) it was held by the Bombay High Court that even ignoring the amendment to section 12, which means that even before the words appearing to parenthesis in the present section 12, it cannot be held that voluntary contributors specifically received towards the corpus of the trust may be brought to tax. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Trustees of Kasturbai Scindia Commission Trust[1991] 189 ITR 5 (Bom). The position after the amendment is a fortiori. In the present cases the Assessing Officer on evidence has accepted the facts that all the donations have been received towards the corpus of the endowments. In view of this clear finding, it is not possible to hold that they are to be assessed as income of the assessees. We, therefore, hold that the assessment of the corpus donations cannot be supported. 12. For the above reasons, we hold as under : 1. The religious endowments are not invalid on the ground that neither the temple nor the image had been consecrated at the time of creating the endowments. 2. The assessees have to be assessed in the status of "individual" since they are artificial juridical entities and 3. The voluntary contributions received by the assessee towards the corpus cannot be brought to tax. '6.5 Even after considering the definition of section 2(24)(iia) read with section 12, the hon'ble Income-tax 12 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata arrived to the conclusion that the voluntary contribution in the nature of corpus donation raised by the appellant cannot be brought to tax. In this case also, the trust under appeal was a private religious trust not registered under section 12AA and hence, corpus donation received by it should not be taxable as its income. 6.6 After considering the position of law as it is prevailing at present on the basis of the decision of three Tribunals, i.e., Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata and further confirmed by the Delhi High Court, the corpus donation is in the nature of a capital receipt and are not taxable, irrespective of the fact whether the trust is registered under section 12AA or not. Therefore, I agree with the learned authorised representative that the amount of Rs. 68,50,000 being in the nature of corpus donation is not taxable under the Income-tax Act being in the nature of capital receipt and therefore, addition of Rs. 68,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer towards the taxable income of the assessee is hereby deleted and accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed." 4. The learned Departmental representative relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer, whereas the learned authorised representative relied upon the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has followed the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, which has been confirmed by the hon'ble Delhi High Court, thus, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 5. The learned authorised representative has submitted that the issue is covered by various orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the cases of Shri Shankar Bhagwan Estate v. ITO [1997] 61 ITD 196 (Cal), Society for Integrated Development in Urban & Rural Areas v. Dy. CIT [2004] 90 ITD 493 (Hyd), Sri Dwarkadheesh 13 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. Charitable Trust v. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 557 (All) and Dy. CIT v. Nasik Gymkhana [2001] 77 ITD 500 (Pune). 6. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and records perused. The grievance of the Revenue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has wrongly followed the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in I. T. A. No. 5082/Del./2010, whereas that order has been challenged before the hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue did not dispute the facts. We noticed that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering the decision of three Tribunals, i.e., Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in the case of ITO (Exemption) v. Smt. Basanti Devi & Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust [IT Appeal No. 5082 (Delhi) of 2010, dated 30-1-2009] the Revenue filed appeal before the hon'ble Delhi High Court. The hon'ble Delhi High Court confirmed the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue filed appeal before the hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been dismissed for non- prosecution vide judgment Civil Appeal Nos. 7036 of 2011, judgment dated January 28, 2013, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench in the case of Pentafour Software Employees Welfare Foundation v. Asstt. CIT [I.T. Appeal Nos. 751 & 752 (Mds.) of 2007] and others and Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in the case of Shri Shankar Bhagwan Estate (supra) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We find that the facts of the case under consideration are identical to the facts of the case decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the case of Smt. Basanti Devi and Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust and other orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Since facts are identical, therefore, to maintain consistency, we follow the above orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the light of facts we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals). The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is confirmed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 14 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. The ITAT, Chennai in Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists v. ITO in decision reported in (2014) 47 taxmann.com 183(Chennai-Trib.) held that specific funds created for fulfilling specific objectives for which these separate funds are constituted remain as capital funds as the funds can be used for fulfilling specific objectives for which these funds are constituted and hence to be treated as corpus funds and to be excluded from computation of Income. The ITAT , Bangalore in ITO v. Vokkaligara Sangha in a decision reported in (2015) 44 CCH 0509 (Bang. Trib.) whereby the Tribunal held that voluntary contributions received for a specific purposes cannot be regarded as income u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act since they were capital receipts being corpus fund and tied up grants for specific purposes. In our considered view keeping in view our detailed discussions above and the case laws cited before us, these corpus donations of Rs.4,55,446/- received by the assessee trust cannot be brought to tax despite the fact that the assessee-trust was not registered u/s 12A/12AA of the Act. We order accordingly." 22. The above extracted portion is relevant for the ratios that the Corpus donations received by the Trusts, which is not registered u/s.12A/12AA of the Act, are not taxable as they assume the nature of 'Capital receipt' the moment the donations are given to the "Corpus of the Trust". 23. We find the provisions of section (24)(iia)/12(1)/11(1)(d)/35/56(2) are relevant for deciding the current issue. It is a settled legal proposition, in case of a registered Trust under the Income-Tax Act, the corpus specific Voluntary Contributions are outside the scope of income as defined in section 2(24)(iia) of the Act due to their "Capital nature". But it is a case of un-registered Trust. Despite the detailed deliberations made by the Ld. DR, we find the principles relating to judicial discipline assume significance and the priority. It is also decided issue that there is need for upholding the favourable view if there exists divergent views on the issue. As discussed in the preceding 15 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. paragraphs above, there are multiple decisions in favour of the assessee. 24. Accordingly, the Corpus-specific-voluntary contributions are outside the taxations in case of an unregistered Trust u/s.12/12A/12AAA of the Act too. From this point of view, and for this reason, the decision of the CIT(A) in granting relief to assessee does not call for any interferences. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 25. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 6.1. In the present case also, admittedly, the assessee is not enjoying registration under section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2014-15 and the assessee was granted registration by Ld. CIT(E) w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16 only. From the assessment order it is clearly discernible that the A.O. has not doubted or disputed that the impugned amount pertains to corpus funds received by the assessee during the relevant financial period. This fact was also not disputed by the Ld. CIT(E). But the authorities below have treated the corpus donation as taxable in the hands of assessee for want of registration under section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2014-15. As has been held by the Coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of ITO vs., Serum Institute of India Research Foundation dated 19.02.2018 16 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. (supra), that even if the assessee is not granted registration under section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the relevant period, then also corpus funds cannot be taxed in the hands of assessee in absence of such registration. Therefore, respectfully following the order of Coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of ITO vs., Serum Institute of India Research Foundation dated 19.02.2018 (supra), I allow the claim of assessee and direct the A.O. to delete the addition. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Grounds of appeal No.3 is consequential in nature, which needs no adjudication. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.09.2022. Sd/- [CHANDRA MOHAN GARG] JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated 30 th September, 2022 VBP/- 17 ITA.No.308/Del./2020 M/s. Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, Hansi, Haryana. Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. Ld. CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT concerned 5. DR ITAT “SMC” Bench, Delhi 6. Guard File //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches, Delhi.