Vikas Lok Sewa Samiti, Etawah V. C.I.T.-II, Agra

ITA 362/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0414 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ GARGH ADOCATE
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 VIKAS LOK SEWA SMITI, VS. COMMISSIONER OF 208-B, FRIENDS COLONY, INCOME-TAX-II, AGRA. ETAWAH. (PAN: AAV 9650Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARGH, ADOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 24.05.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT-II, AGRA DATED 21/27.07.2011, REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. 2. EARLIER, THIS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN DEFAULT VI DE ORDER DATED 24.04.2012. THE ASSESSEE MOVED M.A. NO. 13/2012 FOR RECALLING O F THE EXPARTE ORDER. THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.07.2012 AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RESTORED. ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 2 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT ON 16.02.2010 (PB-11). THE ASSESSEE F ILED APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA BEFORE THE LD. CIT-II, AGRA ON 14.01.2011. THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED TRUST DEED AND INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. IT WAS SEEN THAT A SUM O F RS.25,00,000/- WAS PAID TO M/S. ZEE LEARN LTD. IN THREE INSTALLMENTS FROM FEB. 2010 TO MARCH, 2011. THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID AFTER RECEIVING UNSECURED LOANS FRO M HUSBAND OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE ENT ERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S. ZEE LEARN LTD. TO USE THEIR NAME AND TO START A SCHOOL AS A FRANCHISEE OF THE SOCIETY. THE LD. CIT ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS, C OPIES OF PROSPECTUS AND BROCHURE OF THE SCHOOL FOUND THAT SCHOOL IS BEING P ROJECTED AS AN UPPER END EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE WHERE BOARDING AND LODGING F ACILITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE, ONCE THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. IT WAS ALSO STA TED THAT M/S. ZEE LEARN LTD. IS A COMPANY, WHICH IS BEING RUN AS COMMERCIAL VENTURE A ND WAS NOT HAVING ANY REGISTRATION U/S. 12A AND EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT ALSO FOUND THAT THE PROSPECTUS OF THE SCHOOL DOES NOT MENTION THE POSSIBILITY OF SPECIAL CARE/TREATMENT OF ECONOMIC BACKWARDS OR SC/ST CANDI DATES. ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE SOCIETY SHALL BE RUNNING A SCHOOL, IT COUL D NOT BE SAID THAT THE SOCIETY IS CARRYING CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. THE LD. CIT, ACCORD INGLY, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 3 WOULD RUN A COMMERCIAL VENTURE, THEREFORE, IT IS NO T FORMED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE, HENCE, REGISTRATION CLAIM WAS DENIED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE S OCIETY HAS STARTED THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN F.Y. 2011-12 IN THE NAME OF MOUNT LITRA SCHOOL AND IMPARTING EDUCATION FROM CLASS-I TO CLASS-VI. THE O BJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ARE EDUCATIONAL ONLY (PB-1 TO 10). PB-11 IS REGISTR ATION UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. SECTION 20 OF THE SOCIETIES REGIS TRATION ACT, 1960 PROVIDES REGISTRATION TO THE SOCIETIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ACTIN G AS CHARITABLE SOCIETIES. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS.25,00,000/- WAS GI VEN TO M/S. ZEE LEARN LTD. (PB-22 & 29) AND PB-12 IS AGREEMENT WITH THEM FOR P ROVIDING SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SETTING UP THE SCHOOL AND TO GUIDE AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS TO RUN UPPER END EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL. THE OBJECTS OF THE AS SESSEE BEING EDUCATIONAL HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER. PB-33 IS AUDITED BALANCE SHEET FOR F.Y. 2011-12 TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 359 STUDENTS IN DIFFERENT CLASSES AND HAS RECEIVED SCHOOL FEE WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE INCOME-TA X AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2011 TO 31.03.2012 AND EXPENS ES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR ACHIEVING OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, WHICH AR E MAINLY EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE CONSTRU CTION HAS STARTED, WHICH IS ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 4 PARTIALLY COMPLETED AND EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL IS BEING RUN IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. HE HAS FILED COPIES OF THE NEWS ITEMS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WOULD PROVIDE WORLD LEVEL EDUCATION TO ITS STUDENTS THROU GH MODERN MECHANISM. HE HAS FILED COMPLETE ORDER SHEET OF LD. CIT TO SHOW THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL CIT HAVE RECOMMENDED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION TO T HE ASSESSEE BUT ULTIMATELY, THE LD. CIT WITHOUT ANY REASON ACTING ON THE DRAFT ORDE R PUT UP BY THE ITO (TECH.) REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEES MAIN AIMS AND OBJEC TS ARE ADMITTEDLY EDUCATIONAL AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO STARTED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIE S IN F.Y. 2011-12, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN TH E CASE OF SWETA KALYAN SAMITI IN ITA NO. 433/2010 DATED 08.06.2012 AND THE SAME V IEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. BIMLA DEVI GOP AL PRASAD PRESS WALE CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 288 & 289/AGRA/ 2012 DATED 23.11.2012. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON UNREPORTED DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 107 OF 2012 DATED 15.03.2013 IN THE CASE OF HARDAYAL CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. CIT-II, AGRA, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT AT THE STAGE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION, THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJEC TS HAS TO BE TESTED AND NOT THE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE NOT COMMENCED. ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 5 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IM PUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FRANCHISEE OF ASSESSEE, BEING COMMERCIAL V ENTURE, AND HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION, THEREFORE, ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE, THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, NO ACTIVITIES HAVE BE EN STARTED BY THE SOCIETY TOWARDS ITS OBJECTS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NUMBER OF ST UDENTS AND SCHOOL FEES CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHA RGING VERY HIGH AMOUNT AS FEES. THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED IN THE MATTER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SECTION 12AA OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : 12AA. (1) THE COMMISSIONER, ON RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION MADE UNDER C LAUSE ( A ) OR CLAUSE ( AA ) OF SUB-SECTION (1)] OF SECTION 12A, SHALL ( A ) CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE T RUST OR INSTITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THIS BEHALF; AND ( B ) AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES, HE ( I ) SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REGISTERING THE TR UST OR INSTITUTION; ( II ) SHALL, IF HE IS NOT SO SATISFIED, PASS AN ORDER I N WRITING REFUSING TO REGISTER THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AND A COPY OF SUCH ORDER SHALL BE SENT TO THE APPLI CANT : ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 6 PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER UNDER SUB-CLAUSE ( II ) SHALL BE PASSED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD. (1A) ALL APPLICATIONS, PENDING BEFORE THE CHIEF COM MISSIONER ON WHICH NO ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED UNDER CLAUSE ( B ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1999, SHALL STAND TRANSFERRED ON T HAT DAY TO THE COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER MAY PROCEED WITH SUCH APPLICATIONS UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH THEY WERE ON THAT DAY. (2) EVERY ORDER GRANTING OR REFUSING REGISTRATION U NDER CLAUSE ( B ) OF SUB- SECTION (1) SHALL BE PASSED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SI X MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED UNDER CLAUSE ( A ) OR CLAUSE ( AA ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 12A. (3) WHERE A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION HAS BEEN GRANTE D REGISTRATION UNDER CLAUSE ( B ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) 40 [OR HAS OBTAINED REGISTRATION AT ANY TIME UNDER SECTION 12A [AS IT STOOD BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1996 (33 OF 1996) AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE COMM ISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INST ITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OB JECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, HE SHALL PASS AN O RDER IN WRITING CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTIT UTION: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE PASSE D UNLESS SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6.1 SECTION 2(15) OF THE IT ACT PROVIDES THE DEFIN ITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS UNDER : 2( 15 ) 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, [PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING WA TERSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE) AND PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OR PLAC ES OR OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST, AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY: ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 7 PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERA L PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, I F IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR A NY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO THEREIN IS TWENTY-FIVE LAKH RUPEES OR LESS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR; 6.2 ON GOING THROUGH THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE P URPOSE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EDUCATION PER SE IS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED COPIES OF AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE- SOCIETY FROM PAGES 1 TO 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH THE MAIN AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ARE E DUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRA TION ACT AND ALSO ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S. ZEE LEARN LTD., WHO WAS TO PROV IDE EDUCATIONAL CONTENTS AND PRODUCING OR PROCURING EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE AND PRO VIDING GUIDANCE FOR SETTING UP SCHOOLS AND CONDUCTING CLASSES FOR VOCATIONAL COURS ES. THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.25,00,000/- TO M/S. ZEE LEARN LTD. IN INSTALLMEN TS. THE LD. CIT DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY A RE EDUCATIONAL ONLY AND AS SUCH CHARITABLE IN NATURE. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE E NGAGED M/S. ZEE LEARN LTD. FOR SETTING UP OF THE SCHOOL OR TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS TO THE SCHOOL OF ASSESSEE WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE DISENTITLED FO R REGISTRATION. ULTIMATELY, IT IS THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY WHO HAS TO RUN EDUCATIONAL SCH OOL FOR ACHIEVING ITS OBJECTS AND ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 8 HAS ALSO ACTUALLY STARTED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN F.Y. 2011-12, WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STARTED ACTUAL EDUCATIONAL AC TIVITIES FROM F.Y. 2011-12. THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. CIT THAT M/S. ZEE LEARN LTD. I S RUNNING A COMMERCIAL VENTURE AND IS NOT REGISTERED U/S. 12A, THUS, WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARDAYAL CHARITABLE & EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. CIT-II, AGRA (SU PRA) HELD AS UNDER : THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE JUDICIAL OPINION OF ALL TH E HIGH COURT INCLUDING THIS COURT IS THAT AT THE TIME OF R EGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH IS NECESS ARY FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT, THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT REQUIRED TO LOOK INTO THE ACTIVIT IES, WHERE SUCH ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT OR ARE IN THE PROCESS OF ITS IN ITIATION. WHERE A TRUST, SET UP TO ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTS OF ESTABLISHING EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTION, IS IN THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING SUCH INSTITUTIONS, A ND RECEIVES DONATIONS, THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA CANN OT BE REFUSED, ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST HAS NOT YET COMMENCED THE CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. ANY ENQUIRY OF THE NATURE WOULD AMOUNT TO PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. AT THIS STAGE ONLY THE G ENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS HAS TO BE TASTED AND NOT THE ACTIVITIES, WH ICH HAVE NOT COMMENCED. THE ENQUIRY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX AT SUCH PRELIMINARY STAGE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO GENUINENE SS OF THE OBJECTS AND NOT THE ACTIVITIES UNLESS SUCH ACTIVITIES HAVE COMMENCED. THE TRUST OR SOCIETY CANNOT CLAIM EXEMPTION, UNLESS IT IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND THUS AT THAT SUCH INITI AL STAGE THE TEST OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITY CANNOT BE A GROUND ON WHICH THE REGISTRATION MAY BE REFUSED. ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COU RT AT THE STAGE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS HAVE TO BE TESTED AND NOT THE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE NOT COMMENCED. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS, ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 9 BEING EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND EVEN IF AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPLICATION, EDUCA TIONAL ACTIVITIES WERE NOT STARTED, BUT THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 2011-12 HAVE COMMENCED ACT UAL EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT SQUARELY APPLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE AUDITED B ALANCE SHEET ENDING 31.03.2012 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THAT FROM JUNIOR K .G. TO 6 TH CLASSES, THE ASSESSEE HAS 359 STUDENTS AND HAS RECEIVED SCHOOL FEES AND I NCURRED EXPENSES FOR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. FURTHER, ORDER SHEET OF LD. CIT-II IS FILE D IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 45 AND 46 IN WHICH ON 04.07.2011, IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL CIT AS WELL AS THE AO HAVE RECOMMENDED THE CASE FOR GRANT OF RE GISTRATION. THUS, THERE WAS ENOUGH MATERIAL ON RECORD OF THE LD. CIT TO SHOW TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND HAVE THE SAME AIMS AND O BJECTS AND AS SUCH, SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 12AA FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATI ON. FURTHER, LATER ON, THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER SHEET DATED 27.07.2011 NOTED THE FOLLO WING : 27/07/11 : AS DIRECTED, A DRAFT ORDER OF REJECTION U/S. 12A TO VIKAS LOK SEWA SAMITI ETAWAH IS PUT UP FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL, APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE. SD/ SD/- SD/- STA ITO(T) CIT-II ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 10 THE ABOVE ORDER SHEET WOULD CLEARLY REVEAL THAT WHE N THE ADDL. CIT AND THE AO HAVE RECOMMENDED THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT, THERE WAS NO ADVERSE MATERIAL AVAILABLE AGA INST THE ASSESSEE FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION. FROM THE ORDER SHEET DATED 27.07.2 011, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ITO(TECH.) PUT UP THE DRAFT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CI T-II FOR REJECTION OF APPLICATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT INSTEAD OF EXA MINING THE CASE HIMSELF HAS APPROVED THE DRAFT ORDER PUT UP BY ITO TECHNICAL BY PUTTING HIS SIGNATURE. SUCH A COURSE ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UN DER LAW. SIMILAR POINT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SWETA KA LYAN SAMITI VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 433/AGR./2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 08.06.2012, IN W HICH IN PARAS 5 & 6, IT IS HELD AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVE RED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT, AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHIKSHA SANKALP SOC IETY (SUPRA), IN WHICH ON IDENTICAL FACTS FOLLOWING ORDER HAS BEEN P ASSED IN PARA 5 TO 8. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. SECTION 80G(5)(VI) PROVIDES THA T IN RELATION TO DONATIONS MADE AFTER 31.03.1992, THE IN STITUTION OR FUND IS FOR THE TIME BEING APPROVED BY THE COMMISSI ONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES MADE IN THIS BEHALF. SEC TION 80G(5) PROVIDES THAT BEFORE GRANTING APPROVAL UNDER THE AB OVE PROVISION, ASSESSEE/INSTITUTION SHOULD EXIST FOR CH ARITABLE PURPOSE AND FULFILL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN SU B-CLAUSE (I) TO (V) OF SECTION 80G(5) OF THE IT ACT. NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN STATED TO BE VIOLATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 11 5.1 RULE 11AA OF THE IT RULES PROVIDES REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF INSTITUTION OR FUND U/S. 80G OF THE IT ACT AND SAME READS AS UNDER : REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF AN INSTITUTION OR FUN D UNDER SECTION 80G. 11AA. (1) THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ANY INSTITUTION OR FUND UNDER CLAUSE (VI) OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SEC TION 80G SHALL BE IN FORM NO. 10G AND SHALL BE MADE IN TRIPLICATE. (2) THE APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, NAMELY : (I) COPY OF REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1 2A OR COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 10(23) OR 10(2 3C) ; (II) NOTES ON ACTIVITIES OF INSTITUTION OR FUND SINCE ITS INCEPTION OR DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LESS ; (III) COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF THE INSTITUTION OR F UND SINCE ITS INCEPTION OR DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LESS. (3) THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR SUCH FURTHER DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE INSTITUTION OR FU ND OR CAUSE SUCH INQUIRIES TO BE MADE AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVI TIES OF SUCH INSTITUTION OR FUND. (4) WHERE THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT ALL T HE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SUB-S ECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G ARE FULFILLED BY THE INSTITUTION OR FUN D, HE SHALL RECORD SUCH SATISFACTION IN WRITING AND GRANT APPRO VAL TO THE INSTITUTION OR FUND SPECIFYING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS FOR WHICH THE APPROVAL IS VALID. (5) WHERE THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT ONE O R MORE OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN CLAUSES (I) TO (V) O F SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G ARE NOT FULFILLED, HE SHALL REJE CT THE ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 12 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL, AFTER RECORDING THE REASO NS FOR SUCH REJECTION IN WRITING. PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER OF REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION SHALL BE PASSED WITHOUT GIVING THE INSTITUTION OR F UND AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. (6) THE TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH THE COMMISSIONER S HALL PASS AN ORDER EITHER GRANTING THE APPROVAL OR REJEC TING THE APPLICATION SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX MONTHS FROM THE DA TE ON WHICH SUCH APPLICATION WAS MADE: PROVIDED THAT IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, ANY TIME TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT IN NOT COMPLYING WITH T HE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SUB-RULE (3) SHALL BE EXC LUDED. 5.2 IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST/IN STITUTION RUNS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND ENJOYED CONTINUOUS R EGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. HE IS ALSO REGISTERED UNDE R THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. IN EARLIER YEAR, IT WAS ALSO GRANTED APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE FI LED REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH APPLICATION, WHICH HAVE NOT BE EN DISPUTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND EVEN AS PER OBSE RVATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ON EXAMINATION OF OBJECTS OF TH E ASSESSEE INSTITUTION, THE SAME WERE PRIMA FACIE APPEARED TO BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO RULE 11AA OF THE IT RULES, THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMEN TS FOR EXTENSION OF THE APPROVAL. THE RULE FURTHER PROVIDE S THAT THE COMMISSIONER MAY CALL FOR FURTHER DOCUMENTS OR INFO RMATION FROM THE INSTITUTION OR FUND OR TO CAUSE SUCH ENQUI RIES TO BE MADE AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY H IMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSE SSEE INSTITUTION OR FUND. THE COMMISSIONER, ON SATISFYING WITH THE T ERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80G(5) (I) TO (V) OF THE ACT, MAY RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN WRITING AND GRANT APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE/INSTITUTION. IF ONE OR MORE CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED, THE COMMISSIONER MAY REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL. HOWEVER, NO ORDER OF REJE CTION OF APPLICATION SHALL BE PASSED WITHOUT GIVING THE INST ITUTION OR ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 13 FUND AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. FURTHER, ACCORD ING TO SUB- RULE (6) OF RULE 11AA OF THE IT RULES, THE COMMISSI ONER SHALL HAVE TO PASS AN ORDER EITHER GRANTING APPROVAL OR R EJECTING APPLICATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH APPLICATION WAS MADE. THE PROVISO, HOWEVER, PROVIDE S THAT IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, ANY TIME TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN NOT COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF TH E COMMISSIONER UNDER SUB-RULE (3), SHALL BE EXCLUDED. 5.3. ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF S. LAKHA SI NGH BAHRA CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT (SUPRA) HELD CIT HAS TO PASS AN ORDER EITHER GRANTING THE APPRO VAL OR REJECTING APPLICATION WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION IS MADE; REJECTION OF APPLICATION BEYOND SIX MONTHS MAKES TH E ASSESSEE LEGITIMATELY ENTITLED FOR APPROVAL. 5.4 ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MAHARISHI DAYA NAND EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. CIT(SUPRA), FOLLOWING ITS EAR LIER DECISION, HELD THAT DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF REGISTRATION U/ S. 12A, THE RENEWAL OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80G COULD NOT BE DENIE D ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CARRY OUT CHARITA BLE ACTIVITY. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT RENEWAL OF APPROVAL U/ S. 80G HAS WRONGLY BEEN REFUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT WAS D IRECTED TO GRANT THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. 5.5 ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF GAUR BRAHMIN VI DYA PRACHARINI SABHA VS. CIT (SUPRA) HELD ASSESSEE SOCIETY FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLI SHING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, NOT FOR ANY PARTICULAR REL IGION, COMMUNITY OR CAST HAVING BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12AA AND ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN C LS. (I) TO (V) OF SUB-S. (5) OF S. 80G HAVING BEEN FULFILLE D, ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER S. 80G(5)(VI), NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT IT IS CHA RGING FEES FOR EDUCATION. 5.6 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 08.07.2010 (PB-47 TO 49), WHICH IS PASS ED BY THE ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 14 ITO (TECH.). THE LD. DR ALSO PRODUCED THE RECORD WH ICH CONFIRMS THAT THE ITO (TECH.) RECORDED THE ORDER SH EET ON 08.07.2010, IN WHICH THE SAME FACTS HAVE BEEN NOTED AS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ITO (TECH.). THE ITO (TECH.) AFTER NOTING THE SAME FACT S, AS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RECOMMENDED TH AT CONTINUATION OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE AND APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL IS LIABLE TO B E REJECTED. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE ITO (TECH.) THAT DRAFT ORDER I S PUT UP FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL BY THE CIT. IN FURTHER P ARA, ITO (TECH.) NOTED, IF YOUR HONOUR MAY APPROVE, A LETTE R MAY ALSO BE WRITTEN TO ADDL. CIT, FARRUKHABAD FOR TAKING REM EDIAL ACTION IN A.Y. 2007-08 & 2009-10 AS PER FACTS SATED IN PARAS 2 & 4. THE ABOVE NOTE/ORDER SHEET DATED 08.07.2010 O F ITO (TECH.) WAS PUT UP BEFORE THE LD. CIT, ALIGARH FOR HIS APPROVAL ON ITEM (A) AND ITEM (B) AND THE LD. CIT ALIGARH, S HRI VIRENDRA SINGH OBSERVED AS UNDER : A & B ABOVE ARE APPROVED. LETTER TO RANGE HEAD MAY BE PUT UP. THIS WAS SIGNED BY CIT, ALIGARH ON 22.07.2010, WHIC H CLEARLY PROVES THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL ENQU IRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE ITO (TECH.) AT THE BACK OF TH E CIT, ALIGARH AND EVEN THE DRAFT ORDER WAS PUT UP BY ITO (TECH.), WHICH IS ONLY APPROVED BY THE LD. CIT, ALIGARH. THE LD. DR PRODUCED THE ORDER SHEET OF 18.02.2010, IN WHICH TH E CIT, ALIGARH DIRECTED ENQUIRY TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE ADD L. CIT, WHICH IS ALSO REFERRED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, BUT I T WAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO WHICH OF THE CIT HAS SIGNED THIS OR DER SHEET. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED THE PROFILES OF SHRI A.K. JAIN, SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH, CI TS, IN WHICH IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT SHRI A.K. JAIN, CIT, ALIGARH REMAINED POSTED AT ALIGARH FROM 22.06.06 TO 28.01.2010 AND S HRI VIRENDRA SINGH, CIT REMAINED POSTED AS CIT, ALIGARH FROM 22.07.2010 TILL DATE. IN BETWEEN SHRI SURENDRAJIT S INGH, WAS HOLDING THE CHARGE OF CIT, ALIGARH DURING THE PERIO D 10.07.2010 TO 18.07.2010 AND NO SUCH INFORMATION WA S MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHETHER HE WAS PHYSICA LLY PRESENT AT THE OFFICE OF CIT, ALIGARH. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE FACTS, THE LD. DR WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE JURISDICTION AL ORDER OF ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 15 THE CIT, ALIGARH. DESPITE GIVING SUFFICIENT TIME, N O JURISDICTIONAL ORDER OF CIT, ALIGARH DEALING WITH T HE ABOVE MATTER WAS PRODUCED. THE LD. DR FILED COPIES OF SEV ERAL LETTERS WHICH WERE WRITTEN BY HIM TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR DOI NG THE NEEDFUL AND JURISDICTION ORDER OF CIT, ALIGARH BETW EEN 19.01.2010 TO 27.07.2010, BUT NOTHING WAS PRODUCED IN THIS REGARD. THESE FACTS WOULD CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE OR DER SHEET WRITTEN BY ITO (TECH.) ON 08.07.2010 WAS NOT APPROV ED BY SHRI A.K. JAIN, FORMER CIT OR SHRI SURENDRAJIT SINGH, OF FICIATING CIT, ALIGARH. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH, CIT, ALIGARH WHO PASSED THE ORDER ON 27.07.2010 WAS POSTED AS CIT, ALIGARH ONLY ON 22.07.2010. THUS, THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, ABOVE, HAVE CALLED FOR ANY DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION IN ORDER TO SATISFY THEMSELVES ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION OR THE FUNDS. THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IS PASSED BY CIT, ALIGARH WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS ALSO PAS SED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF A PPLICATION. SINCE NO ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY ANY OF TH E CIT IN THE MATTER, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF NOT COMPLYING W ITH THE DIRECTIONS OF COMMISSIONER UNDER SUB-RULE (3) OF RU LE 11AA SO AS TO EXCLUDE THE PERIOD DURING WHICH DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THUS, NO DELAY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH T HE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT IN THE MATTER. THESE FACTS WOULD CL EARLY PROVE THAT ENQUIRIES WERE DONE BY THE ITO (TECH.) WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW. EVEN IF, THE COMMISSIONER MAY DIR ECT THE ITO (TECH.) TO MAKE ENQUIRIES IN THE MATTER, BUT SUCH E NQUIRY REPORT SHALL HAVE TO BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ONL Y THE COMMISSIONER WOULD CALL FOR THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS O F THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION OR FUNDS. TH E POWERS OF THE LD. CIT ACCORDING TO RULE 11AA OF THE IT RULES TO S ATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION, CANNOT BE DELEGATED TO THE ITO (TECH.). SINCE THERE IS NO ORDER SHEET ENTRY RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT PRIOR TO 22.07. 2010, IN WHICH ALSO, THE LD. CIT ONLY APPROVED THE DRAFT ORD ER OF THE ITO (TECH.), WOULD CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT THE IMPUGNED OR DER IS ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 16 PASSED IN MOST MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LD. CIT HOLDS THE OFFICE OF QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WHILE DEALING WITH SUCH MATTERS. THEREFOR E, SUCH A CASUAL APPROACH IN THE MATTER IS NOT APPRECIATED. E VEN ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY ISSUE DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT T HERE IS NO SUDDEN JUMP IN THE DONATION AND THAT NONE OF THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 11 HAVE BEEN VIOLATED WHICH ARE ALSO SUBJEC T MATER OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE OBSERVATION IN THE IM PUGNED ORDER ARE VERBATIM OF THE ORDER SHEET OF ITO (TECH. ) AS PER ORDER SHEET DATED 08.07.2010, THEREFORE, THE FINDIN G OF ITO (TECH.) HAVE NO VALUE UNDER THE EYES OF LAW BECAUSE NO ENQUIRY OR PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY CIT, ALIGARH. 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE IMPUGNED O RDER DATED 27.07.2010 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW AND ACC ORDINGLY, WE HOLD (I). THAT THE CIT, ALIGARH HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY INTO THE MATTER IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE INSTI TUTION OR FUND; (II). THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE AND IN MOST MECHANICAL MANNER, MERELY RELYING UPON THE ORD ER SHEET DATED 08.07.2010 RECORDED BY ITO (TECH.); (III). THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF APPLI CATION AND, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF RULE 11AA(6) OF THE IT RUL ES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. NOTHING COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESS EE FOR TAKING TIME IN NOT COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD . CIT BECAUSE THE LD. CIT NEVER ISSUED ANY DIRECTION AS PER ABOVE FINDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR GRANT OF RE NEWAL OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5) OF THE IT ACT; (IV). THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY ITO (TECH.) FOR REF USAL TO RENEW THE APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) ARE NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE ENJOYED REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT CONTINUOUSLY AND ALSO COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 17 OF SECTION 80G(5), THEREFORE, RENEWAL OF APPROVAL S HOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, ALIGARH DATED 27.07.2010 AND DIRECT HIM TO GRANT RENEWAL OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) OF THE IT ACT. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 5.1 ON EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND T HAT THE FACTS AND ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED FOR APPROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE IT ACT. FURTHER, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE TH AT THE REPORT FROM ADDL. CIT WAS CALLED FOR IN THIS MATTER, WHO HAS GI VEN HIS REPORTED DATED 13.09.2010 AS IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 55 & 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK, I N WHICH THE LD. ADDL. COMMISSIONER ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE RECOMMENDED FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE I T ACT AND ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING CHARITABLE ACTIVI TIES. THE REPORT OF ADDL. CIT WAS NOT CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER AND THE ITO (TECH.) BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE ADDL. CIT AND WITHOUT SHOWING RESPECT TO HIS RECOMMENDATION AND CLEARLY S HOWING INSUBORDINATION, SUO MOTO TOOK UP THE MATTER FOR FU RTHER INVESTIGATION AND CALLED FOR FURTHER QUERIES FROM THE ASSESSEE VI DE NOTICE DATED 15.09.2010 (PB-57), WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESS EE IMMEDIATELY ON 20.09.2010 (PB-59 TO 89). THE RTI INFORMATION (P B-90) SHOWS THAT ITO (TECH.) RECORDED THE ORDER SHEET ON 27.09.2010 AND RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION OF APPLICATION U/S. 80G A ND PUT UP THE DRAFT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT FOR HIS APPROVAL. TH E LD. CIT ON THE DRAFT ORDER OF THE ITO (TECH.) PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER (PB-96): I AGREE, PL. PUT UP FAIR LETTER. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, SHOW THAT THE LD. CIT DID NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUE HIMSELF AND MERELY ACTED ON THE REPORT OF ITO (TECH .) AGAINST THE REPORT OF ADDL. CIT. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ENTIRELY VERBATIM OF THE ORDER SHEET DATED 27.09.2010 PREPARED BY ITO (TECH. ). THESE FACTS WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ITO (TECH.) ACTED AGAIN ST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW AND THE LD. CIT DID NOT DO ANYTHING IN THE MATTER AND MERELY APPROVED THE DRAF T ORDER OF THE ITO (TECH.). THE ORDER IS ALSO PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 18 THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE FACTS WOULD JUSTIFY GRA NT OF APPROVAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY OUR ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHIKSHA SANKALP SOCIETY (SUPRA). WE, AC CORDINGLY, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHIKSHA SANKALP SOCIETY (SUPRA), SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, ALIGARH AND DIRECT HIM TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5)(VI) OF THE IT ACT AS PRAYED FO R BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 6.3 IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED ITS EAR LIER DECISION DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SHIKSHA SANKALP SOCIETY, 53 SOT (AGRA) URO 26. SAME VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS LATER DECISION IN THE CASE OF S MT. BIMLA DEVI GOPAL PRASAD PRESS WALE (SUPRA). CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN T HE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND ITAT, AGRA BENCH (SUPRA), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REFUSAL TO GRANT OF REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHLY UNJ USTIFIED. THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, ARE CHAR ITABLE AND THAT THE LD. CIT DESPITE RECOMMENDING THE REGISTRATION BY THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES, HAS MERELY ACTED ON THE DRAFT ORDER PUT UP BY THE SUBORDINATE OFFICER, I.E. , ITO (TECH.) AND REFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSE SSEE IS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/27.07.2011 AND DIRECT T HE LD. CIT-II, AGRA TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 12AA OF THE IT AC T FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF APPLICATION BEFORE HIM AS PER LAW. THE REGISTRATION SHALL BE GRANTED WITHIN ONE ITA NO. 362/AGRA/2011 19 MONTH FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY