M/s. Bhai Hospital Trust, New Delhi V. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 4147/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3041 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL GULATI
• Assessee Lawyers: PULKIT VERMA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Cancellation of registration; Set aside
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 13; 10(23C); 12; 11

Judgement Text

1 | P A GE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI A BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4147/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : NIL M/S. BHAI HOSPITAL TRUST, 54, JANPATH, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001. PAN-AAATB0492M VS DIT(EXEMPTION), PLOT NO.15, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, LAXMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110092. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SH. TARANDEEP SINGH, ADV. & SH. PULKIT VERMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. SATPAL GULATI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 05.05.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 .0 6 .2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR NIL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED DIT(EXE MPTIONS), DELHI DATED 19.07.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ORDER DATED 19TH JULY, 2011 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DEL HI (LD.DIT) CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT OF THE APPELLAN T TRUST, SINCE INCEPTION, IS BAD AND WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING AND APPRECIATI NG THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AND IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE POSITION CONSI STENTLY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OVER A LONG PERIOD OF MORE THAN 25 YEARS . 2. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD.DIT PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY MAKING WRONG AND LEGALLY INCORRECT OBSERVATIONS AND BY WRONGLY HOLDING 2 | P A GE THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(15), 10(23C)(IIIAE), 11(5), 13(1)(C) & 13(1 )(D) R.W.S. 13(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD NOT VIOLATED ANY OF THE PROVISIONS AND FULL EXPLANATIONS / SUBMISSIO NS IN THIS REGARD HAD BEEN MADE IN RESPONSE TO HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATE D 28TH MARCH, 2011. 3. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD.DIT ERRED IN NO T APPRECIATING THAT THE CASE OF APPELLANT WAS COVERED U/S 10(23C)(IIIAE ) OF THE ACT AND THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A COULD NOT MEAN THAT COMPULSORI LY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11,12 & 13 PARTICULARLY PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 11(5) ARE APPLICABLE AND MORE SO WHEN THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PAST, HAD AL WAYS ACCEPTED THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS COVERED U/S 10(22A) U PTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND U/S 10(23C)(IIIAE) FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 TO 2006- 07. 4. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD.DIT ERRED IN TA KING A VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST HAD NOT BEEN CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES WHEREIN IT WAS DULY ACCEPTED POSITION IN THE PAST THAT CHARITA BLE ACTIVITIES IN THE FORM OF RUNNING AN OPD FACILITY FOR POOR AND NEEDY PERSO NS WAS BEING CONTINUOUSLY RUN SINCE THE YEAR 1982. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS HEREINABOVE AND WITHOUT ACCEPTING ANY VIOLATION OF LAW, EVEN IF THERE WAS ANY VIOLATI ON OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 (5) AND 13 OF THE ACT, IT WOULD ONLY RESULT IN T AXABILITY OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE WHOLE BASIS OF THE LD.D IT TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION, IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND ALSO AGAI NST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS HEREINABOVE, T HE LD.DIT ALSO ERRED IN CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A SINCE INCEPT ION, WHEREAS THE POWERS TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION WERE PROVIDED IN PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT W.E.F. 1ST JUNE, 2010 AND THE REGISTRATION COULD BE CANCELLED PROSPECTIVELY AND NOT SINCE INCEPTION I.E. 30TH MAR CH, 1980.2. THE FACTS 3 | P A GE GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT LD.DIT(E ) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A TO THE ASSESSEES SOCI ETY VIDE THIS OFFICES ORDER 1574 DATED 30.03.1980. ON THE BASIS THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DONATION OF RS.13.65 CRORE TO THE BHAI HOSPITAL TRU ST, THE SISTER ENTITY OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE DONAT ION WAS GIVEN OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD PAID INTEREST TO THE RELATED PARTIES. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY EXCEPT MEAGER ACTIVITY IN T HE FORM OF MEDICAL FACILITIES. 2. THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE LD. DIT(E) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.07.2011 CANCELLED REGISTRAT ION GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) VIDE OFFICE OR DER 1574 DATED 30.03.1980. ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DONATION O F RS.13.65 CRORES TO THE BHAI HOSPITAL TRUST, THE SISTER ENTITY OF THE ASSE SSEE TRUST. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE DONATION WAS GIVEN OUT OF THE BORROWED FUN D ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD PAID INTEREST TO THE RELATED PARTIES. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVIT Y EXCEPT MEAGER ACTIVITY IN THE FORM OF MEDICAL FACILITIES. 3. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED PRES ENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD.D IT(E) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION STATED T O BE DONATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO ANOTHER TRUST WHICH WAS ALSO AUTH ORED BY SAME PERSON. HE 4 | P A GE SUBMITTED THAT UNDISPUTEDLY REGISTRATION OF THAT TR UST I.E. DR. BHAI MOHAN SINGH FOUNDATION HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED. HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE DONATION GIVEN BY CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHER CHARITABLE TRU ST IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION OF SE CTION 11(5) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE APPLICABLE AS THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ALSO REG ISTERED U/S 10(23C)(IIIAE) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT AUTHORITY BELOW GROSSLY ERRED IN CONSTRAINING THE PROVISION OF LAW AND APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. PER CONTRA, LD. CIT DR OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR 1980 SINCE THEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT . WE FIND THAT LD. DIT(E) WHILE CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION, OBSERVED THAT T HE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS RUNNING OF A HOSPITAL BUT AS PE R THE EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009 -10, A VERY MEAGER RECEIPT FROM OPD WAS DISCLOSED. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS CARRYING OUT ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY FROM A SMALL O NE ROOM SPACE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY LD.DIT(E) THAT THE TRUST HAD DEPLETED I TS PROPERTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.15.76 CRORES I.E. BORROWED FUNDS OF RS.13.65 CRO RES AND INTEREST THEREON. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST BORROWED FUNDS FROM COMPANY NAME M/S. OSCAR PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. OF RS.13,66,50,000 /-. LD.DIT(E) OBSERVED 5 | P A GE THAT THIS BORROWED FUND WAS DONATED TO ANOTHER TRUS T I.E. DR. BHAI MOHAN SINGH FOUNDATION. LD.DIT(E) OBSERVED THAT THE DONE E TRUST WAS ALSO NOT DOING ANY CHARITABLE WORK EXCEPT DONATING SUBSTANTIAL AMO UNT TO OTHERS. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THIS FOUNDATION WAS IN RECEIPT OF SUB STANTIAL AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST, DIVIDEND, PROFIT ON SALE OF MUTUAL F UNDS ETC. LD.DIT(E) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION REVEALED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE BENEFIT CONFERRED TO THE RELATED PARTIES WHICH WAS CLEARLY HIT BY SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND SUCH VIOLATION CLEA RLY ATTRACTS THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. HENCE, LD.DIT( E) REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION AS G RANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 10. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT RS.13.65 CR WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE-BHAI HOSPITAL TRUST TO ANOTHER SISTER ENTITY-DR. BHAI MOHAN SINGH FOUNDATION AND T HE AUTHOR/SETTLER OF BOTH THE TRUSTS WAS THE SAME PERSON I.E. DR. BHAI M OHAN SINGH. SUCH PAYMENT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 13(1)( C) READ WITH SECTION 13(3) OF THE IT ACT. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE POSITION, IT IS FOUND THAT NO GENUINE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WERE CARRIED OUT, THERE WAS NO PROPER AND GENUINE APPLICATION OF TRUST'S INCOME/PROPERTY, ESP ECIALLY DONATION TO OTHER ENTITY AND INTEREST LIABILITY AND VIOLATION OF SECT ION 13(1)(C)(II) AND 11(5) OF THE ACT. 11. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION OF TAKING HUGE LOAN FROM A COMPANY AND DONATING THE SAME TO ANOTHER TRUST IS TOTALLY UNBEC OMING FOR CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. THE CONDUCT OF THE CHARITABLE INSTITU TION SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THEM TO BE R ELIABLE. THERE IS NO COMPULSION TO OBTAIN LOAN AND DONATE THE SAME TO AN OTHER ORGANIZATION IN 6 | P A GE SUCH A HURRIED MANNER AND TO REPAY THE LOAN ALONGWI TH INTEREST BY SELLING INVESTMENTS IN RANBAXY COMPANY IS CLEARLY AN INDICA TION TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES RATHER THAN CARRYING ON ANY CHARITABLE A CTIVITY TO THE BENEFIT OF GENERAL PUBLIC AT ALL. AFTER ENJOYING THE TAX BENEF IT OVER THE YEARS, THE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOTHING BUT PUBLIC ENT ITIES AND THE FUND THUS HOLD BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC AND INVESTMENT AND APPLI CATION OF INCOME ARE TO BE MADE STRICTLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE TRUSTS CANNOT INVEST AND DISPOSE OFF THE FUNDS AS THEY LIKE IT. INSTEAD THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 11 (5) MANDATES ALL CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS REGISTERED U/S 12A TO HOLD THE INVESTMENT AS PER THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED THEREIN . ANY DEVIATION OF SAID CONDITION WILL TANTAMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE LAW A ND NOT ONLY THE AMOUNT SUBJECT TO TAX BUT CONSISTENT FAILURE TO COMPLY TO THE LAW WOULD ATTRACT CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION. 12. BESIDES THE ABOVE VIOLATION OF SECTION 2(15) A ND 13(1)(C), THE ASSESSEE ALSO HIT BY ACTIVITY WHICH IS NON-CHARITAB LE IN NATURE BY OBTAINING THE LOAN FOR INTEREST AND DIVERTING THE SAME TO ANO THER SISTER ENTITY AS DONATION AND CLAIMING THE SAME AS APPLICATION OF MO NEY TOWARDS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WHICH IS CLEARLY VIOLATION OF C ONFERRING THE BENEFITS TO SPECIFIED PERSONS WITHOUT ANY REASON. FURTHER, THE ACTIVITY CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ANY CHARITY AS IT IS CL AIMED ONLY FOR NAME SAKE AND THERE IS NO REAL ACTIVITY IS BEING CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. HENCE, THE ABOVE FACT CONFIRMS THE NON-CHARITABLE C ONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH MAKES IT IMPERATIVE TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATIO N GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 13. IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ACTIVITY OF THE SOCIETY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE ME ANING OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, AS THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS VIOLATED THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 13(L)(C)(II) AND 11(5) OF THE ACT. SINCE, AND THE A CTIVITY HAS BEEN HIT BY THE 7 | P A GE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15), THUS THE SOCIETY IS NO LONGER IS CHARITABLE SOCIETY. IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE SOCIETY HAS INTENTION TO CARRY OUT NON-CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AN D THUS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) AND THE ACTIVITY BY THE SOCIETY DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A. ACCORDINGLY, REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12A TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS CANCELLED SINCE INCEPTION AS NO CHARITY AND VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OF I.T. ACT AFTER P ROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. 7. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE QUESTION WHICH NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED WHETHER LD. DIT(E) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE REGISTRA TION U/S 12A OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. L D. DIT(E) CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE VIOLATED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT FOR TAKING LO AN OF RS.13.65 CRORES AND DONATING THE SAME TO THE SISTER CONCERN WITHOUT CAR RYING OUT ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED BY LD. DIT(E) THA T THE DONATION AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEE TRUST TO FOUNDATION HAS BEEN SHOWN AS A CORPUS AND DIRECTLY CREDITED TO THE BALANCE SHEET AND NOT THROUGH INCOM E & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. IN THE OPINION OF LD. DIT(E), IT IS CLEARLY VIOLATI ON OF PROVISION OF LAW TO DIVERT THE PROPERTY OF ASSESSEE TRUST TO OTHERS FOR NON-CH ARITABLE ACTIVITIES. IN THE OPINION OF LD. DIT(E), THERE WAS UNREASONABLE AND E XCESSIVE BENEFIT WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE RELATED PARTIES WHICH IS CLEARLY HIT B Y SECTION 13(1)(C) R.W. SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT, HENCE, ATTRACTS ACTION FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE WORDS AS OBTAINED REGISTRAT ION AT ANY TIME WAS INSERTED IN SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT W.E.F 01.06.2010. HO WEVER, LD.DIT(E) HAS 8 | P A GE CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION SINCE INCEPTION. THEREF ORE, IT WAS CONTENDED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CANCELLATION COUL D NOT HAVE BEEN MADE PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISION THUS, THE LD.DIT( E) CLEARLY EXCEEDED THE JURISDICTION. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, SECTION 12A A(3) OF THE ACT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 12AA(3). WHERE A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) [OR HAS OBTAINE D 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 [PRIN CIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SU CH TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, HE SH ALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRUST O R INSTITUTION: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE PASSED UNLESS SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD.] 8. ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE T HE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ALSO REGISTERED U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, PROVI SION OF SECTION 13(5) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE FACTUM OF REGISTRATION U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. THE LD.DIT(E) IS EMPOWER ED TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(3) OF THE ACT IF HE IS SATIS FIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE AND ARE NOT BE ING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST/INSTITUTION AS THE CASE MAY BE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SOLE GROUND OF CANCELLATION OF RE GISTRATION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE 9 | P A GE TRUST OBTAINED A LOAN OF RS.13.65 CRORES, PAID INTE REST THEREON AND DONATED THIS SUM TO ANOTHER TRUST. ADMITTEDLY, THE OTHER T RUST WAS ALSO GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND ITS REGISTRATIO N HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED AND AUTHOR OF BOTH THE TRUSTS IS SAME PERSON. WE ARE U NABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF LD.DIT(E) FIRSTLY, THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN CAN CELLED FROM INCEPTION I.E. PRIOR TO EVEN WHEN THE TRUST THAT HAD OBTAINED REGISTRATI ON WERE BROUGHT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 12AA (3) OF THE ACT. 9. SECONDLY, THE LD.DIT(E) HAS PROCEEDED PURELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD DONATED THE AMOUNT WHICH IT HAD BORROWED TO OTHER CHARITABLE TRUST WITHOUT POINTING OUT AS TO UNDER WHAT PROVISION OF LAW, SUCH ACTION IS PROHIBITED. MOREOVER, IT IS SETTLED POSI TION OF LAW THAT AT THE TIME DISSOLUTION OF TRUST, THE PROPERTY OF TRUST WOULD G O TO ANOTHER CHARITABLE TRUST. THE LD. DIT(E)S APPREHENSION THAT UNDUE BENEFIT IS GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERN IS MISPLACED. 10. AS THE ALLEGED SISTER CONCERN IS ALSO A CHARITA BLE TRUST, THE DONATION FROM ONE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHER CHARITABLE TRUST IS NOT PROHIBITED UNDER LAW. WE FIND THAT LD.DIT(E) HIMSELF HAS RECORDED THAT TH E ASSESSEE TRUST HAS CARRIED OUT SOME MEDICAL OPD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. 11. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 10 | P A GE 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIR TUAL HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON 18 TH JUNE, 2021. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (KUL BHARAT) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL M EMBER * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI