M/s Keshav Madhav Dham Trust, Hisar V. CIT, Hisar

ITA 4374/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 437420114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JAIN; SACHIN JAIN S
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 12; 80G; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH D BENCH D BENCH D BENCH D : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO .4374/DEL/2013 .4374/DEL/2013 .4374/DEL/2013 .4374/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. KESHAV MADHAV DHAM TRUST, KESHAV MADHAV DHAM TRUST, KESHAV MADHAV DHAM TRUST, KESHAV MADHAV DHAM TRUST, VILLAGE KABREL, VILLAGE KABREL, VILLAGE KABREL, VILLAGE KABREL, TEHSIL A TEHSIL A TEHSIL A TEHSIL ADAMPUR, DAMPUR, DAMPUR, DAMPUR, DISTRICT HISAR, DISTRICT HISAR, DISTRICT HISAR, DISTRICT HISAR, HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. PAN : AABTK6454F. PAN : AABTK6454F. PAN : AABTK6454F. PAN : AABTK6454F. VS. VS. VS. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR- -- -14, 14, 14, 14, HISAR. HISAR. HISAR. HISAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. JAIN AND SHRI SACHIN JAIN, ADVOCATES. RESPONDENT BY : MS. SULEKHA VERMA , CIT - DR. DATE OF HEARING : 14.05.2015 14.05.2015 14.05.2015 14.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.06.2015 02.06.2015 02.06.2015 02.06.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.C. GUPTA, VP PER G.C. GUPTA, VP PER G.C. GUPTA, VP PER G.C. GUPTA, VP : :: : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR REJECTING TH E APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT OF SECTION 80G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE ACTION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN REFUSING APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER S . 80G(5)(VI) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ARBITRARY, ERR ONEOUS, UNWARRANTED AND ILLEGAL AND MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTIONS FOR RELIEF. ITA-4374/DEL/2013 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND UNDER LAW LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FELL IN ERROR IN REJECTING CLAIM OF APPROVAL UNDER S. 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON INVALID F OOTINGS AND ERRONEOUS CONSIDERATIONS AS REASONS POINTED OUT FOR REJECTION ARE NOT VALID AND AS SUCH LEGALLY THE IMPUG NED ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF APPELLANT FOR GRANTING APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER S. 80G(5)(VI) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE APPELLANT TRUST FULFILS AL L THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80G(5)(I), (II), (III), (IV) AND (V ) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN REJECTED ON LY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, ON WHIMSICAL GROUNDS AND IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN LA W IN NOT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY IN PRODUCING VALUATION REPORT DATED 18-05-2013 WHICH SUBSTANTIATES THE FACTUM OF CONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF GAUSHALA AND INVESTM ENT MADE THEREIN STANDS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LEARNED CIT, HISAR VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2012. LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REGARDING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12 AA OF THE ACT BY THE CIT VIDE NOTICE DATED 17 TH JUNE, 2013. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DETAILED REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE VIDE ITS REPLY DATE D 26 TH AUGUST, 2013 AND THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING WITH THE CIT, HISAR AN D THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT SUBSISTS TILL DATE AND T HAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12AA HAD NOT BEEN CANCELLED BY THE DEPARTMENT SO FAR. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING ITS APPLI CATION FILED UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ) RULES, 1963. ITA-4374/DEL/2013 3 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80(G)(5) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT ARE FULFILLED IN THIS CASE. HE REFERRED TO THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (5) OF THE REGISTERED TRUST DEED, A COPY THEREOF FILED IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN ITS CHARITABLE OBJECTS HA VE BEEN DETAILED AND ARE CLEARLY CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THEREIN THAT THERE WILL BE NO DISCRIMINATIO N ON ACCOUNT OF RELIGION, CASTE, LANGUAGE ETC. CLAUSE (6) OF THE TRU ST DEED PROVIDES THAT THE TRUST HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ONLY FOR CHARITABLE PURP OSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMIN ATION WITH REGARD TO RELIGION, CASTE, LANGUAGE ETC. AND THERE IS NO INTENT ION OF EARNING PROFIT WHATSOEVER. CLAUSE (7) & (8) OF THE TRUST DEED PROVID E THAT ALL INCOME, SAVINGS OF THE TRUST COULD BE SPENT ONLY FOR THE OBJEC TS OF THE TRUST AND THE PROFIT OR PART THEREOF COULD NOT BE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE TRUSTEES OR ANY OTHER PERSON DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AND THAT ALL TRUSTEES SHALL BE HONORARY ONLY. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT IN SOME EXCE PTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO DISSOLVE THE TRU ST, THEN, WITH THE 2/3 RD MAJORITY OF THE TRUSTEES PRESENT IN THE MEETING, IT WOULD BE HANDED OVER TO RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEWAK SANGH HARYA NA STATE AND SHALL UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG ST THE TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT P ORTION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT, HISAR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN PARAGR APH 4 OF HIS ORDER REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80G O F THE ACT, THE CIT HAS CONCLUDED FIVE REASONS FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND NONE OF THEM IS SUSTAINABLE AS PER LAW. 5. THE FIRST REASON GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT FOR REJ ECTING THE CLAIM WAS THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE OBJECTS O F THE ASSESSEE ITA-4374/DEL/2013 4 TRUST AND ITS WORKING EXCEPT CONSTRUCTION OF GAUSHALA , THE OTHER OBJECTS REMAINED ON PAPER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN AND PARAMOUNT OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO SERVE COWS AND TO PROTECT THEM BY CONSTRUCTING THE GAU SHALA AND PROVIDING ALL FACILITIES. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD UNDERTAKE ALL OF ITS OBJECTS SIMULTANEOUSLY. REGARDING THE SECOND REASONING OF THE CIT THAT THE WORKING OF THE TRUST WA S NEITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES ENUMERATED IN THE TRUST DEE D NOR RECORD HAS ACCORDINGLY BEEN KEPT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF PASSING A RESOLUTION BY ALL THE TRUSTEES FOR EVERY ACTION AND THE DAY TO DAY WORKING HAS TO BE UN DERTAKEN BY THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE TRUST WITH THE HELP OF THE EMPL OYEES EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. 6. REGARDING THE THIRD OBJECTION OF THE CIT FOR REJ ECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT THAT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND VOUCHERS MAINTAINED AND PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WER E NOT RELIABLE AND DO NOT DISCLOSE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS FACTUALLY INCORREC T THAT THE FINAL ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT DISCLOSE T HE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT COULD NOT POIN T OUT A SINGLE ENTRY OR ASSET FOUND OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE TRUST. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MA INTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF RUNNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE T RUST AND THE VARIOUS SO-CALLED DISCREPANCIES IN THE VOUCHERS MAINTAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT . HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE WITH THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT, ROHTAK VS. O.P. JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY [2013 ] 219 TAXMAN 70 (P&H) DATED 2 ND MAY, 2013 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT AT THE TIME OF ITA-4374/DEL/2013 5 GRANTING APPROVAL FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G, THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND APPLICATION OF F UNDS CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FRAMIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIO N AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. CIT AND ANOTHER [2005] 278 ITR 262 (P&H), HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI), THE CIT SHOULD NOT COMPUTE INCOME UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN N.N. DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 452 (GUJ), HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ENQUIRY SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS AND AUTHORITY EXAMINING QUESTION UNDER SEC TION 80G SHOULD NOT ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER. IN CIT, ROHTAK VS. GAUR BR AHMIN VIDYA PRACHARINI SABHA [2011] 203 TAXMAN 226 (P&H), HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD WHERE ALL CONDITIONS LAID D OWN UNDER RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH , THE TRUST IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAYO CO LLEGE OLD BOYS ASSOCIATION VS. DIT(E), ORDER DATED 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 IN ITA NO.2010/DEL/2010, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA, RECOGNITION UNDER S ECTION 80G(5) COULD NOT BE DENIED. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF KARUNYA RURAL HEALTH CARE S OCIETY VS. DIT(E), TRUST CIRCLE [2012] 209 TAXMAN 230 AND OF ITAT, BA NGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M.J. EDUCATION TRUST VS. DIT(E), BANGALORE , ORDER DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2010 IN ITA NO.890/BANG/2009 IN SUPPORT OF TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. REGARDING THE FOURTH OBJECTION OF THE CIT THAT T HE TRUSTEES WERE APPOINTED BECAUSE THEY BELONGED TO A PARTICULAR ORGA NIZATION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO CHOOSE ITS TRUSTEES AND THE CIT SHOULD NOT ITA-4374/DEL/2013 6 INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. REGARDING THE FIFTH OBJEC TION OF THE CIT THAT THE FUNDS WERE NOT PROPERLY UTILIZED AND ALL RECORD ED PURCHASES AND EXPENSES IN THE ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS SEEM TO BE INCORRECT AND, THEREFORE, MONEY SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SIPHONED OFF, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS NO MERIT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A COMPARATIVE CHART BEFORE THE CIT TO SHOW THAT M/S JINDAL MECTEC PRIVATE LIMITED HAS COMPLETED THE WORK OF CON STRUCTING SHEDS IN THE GAUSHALA AT A RATE, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE MAR KET RATE AND LESSER THAN THE RATES CHARGED FROM OTHERS. 8. THE LEARNED CIT-DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LA W CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT UNDER SECT ION 80G(5) HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE EMPHASIZED ON THE NON- FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION OF GENUINENESS OF THE AC TIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE CIT HAD MADE A DETAILED ENQUIRY IN THIS C ASE AND WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH INSTITUTION HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJE CTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT WAS EMPOWERED TO SEE WHETHER THE TRUST WAS GENUINELY CARRYING OUT ITS ACTIVITIES AS PER THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. SHE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT WHEREIN THE CIT HAS MADE DETAILED ENQUIRIES AND HAS HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUING BEARER CHEQUES AND, IN SOME PAYMENTS, NO SUPPORTING VOUCHERS WERE THERE AND THERE WAS A VIOLATI ON OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) AS PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE TRUSTEES FOR ERECTION OF COW SHEDS IN THE GAUSHALA, WITHOUT INV ITING PROPER COMPETITIVE RATES FROM OTHER PARTIES. REGARDING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KUMAR, SHE SUBMITTED THAT NO STATEMENT OF M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KU MAR WAS RECORDED AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO GRA NT THE ASSESSEE ITA-4374/DEL/2013 7 OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THEM. SHE REFERRED TO RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 WHEREIN VARIOUS CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80G HAVE BEEN DETAILED AND WHICH, AS P ER LEARNED CIT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FULFILL. THE CIT-DR SUBMITTED TH AT CLAUSE (8) OF THE TRUST DEED SAYS THAT IN CASE OF DISSOLUTION, THE TRUS T SHOULD BE HANDED OVER TO RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEWAK SANGH HARYAN A STATE, WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SHE REFERRED T O THE ORDER OF THE CIT WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT ONE SHRI RAM NIWAS J AIN HAS SIGNED THE VOUCHERS, WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON AND THERE FORE, COULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THE VARIOUS VOUCHERS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. SH E REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS CASH VOUCHERS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS DETA ILED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT. SHE REFERRED TO THE CASH VOUCHER OF `28,000/- FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING BILL. S HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT WHEREIN IT IS RECORDED THAT THE PRO CEEDINGS REGISTER WAS NOT KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE ITS INCEPTION. SHE RE FERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT WHEREIN HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT SUCH PERSONS WERE INDUCTED AS TRUSTEES WHO HAVE NO TIME FOR THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE TRUST. SHE REFERRED TO PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT WHEREIN HE HAS SUMMARIZED FIVE REASONS FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT IS WELL WITHIN HIS POWERS TO MAKE ENQUIRIES AS HE DEEMS FIT SO AS TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT ITS ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR NOT. THE LEARNED CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT IN THIS CASE HAS PASSED A DETAILED AND SPEAKING ORDER AND HAS RECORDED REASONS FOR COMING TO THE CONCL USION THAT THE TRUST IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80G O F THE ACT. SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS REJOINDER , SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE NO STATEMENT OF M/S BHIM SAIN SUR ESH KUMAR WAS RECORDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IS NO GROUND TO SAY THAT THE ITA-4374/DEL/2013 8 ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THEM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A SPECIFIC WRITTEN RE QUEST IN THIS REGARD, WHICH WAS REJECTED FOR NO VALID REASON. HE SUBMITTED THAT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL TO BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, SHOULD BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A COMPARATIVE CHART OF RATES FOR ERECTION O F COW SHEDS OF M/S JINDAL MECTEC PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH SHOWS THAT M/S JIN DAL MECTEC PRIVATE LIMITED HAS CHARGED THE ASSESSEE AT LESSER RATES AS COMPARED TO THE RATES CHARGED FROM OTHER PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A CHART SHOWING VARIOUS INVOICE NUMBERS AND THE DISCOUN T ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT REFUSING REGISTRA TION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE VARIOUS COPIES OF PAPERS FILED IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE US. THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE AR E NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED TRUST WITH THE REGISTERING AUT HORITY IN HARYANA. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE CIT AND IT WAS GR ANTED THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE A CT BY THE CIT, HISAR VIDE ORDER DATED 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2012. THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REGARDING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT BY THE CIT VIDE NOTICE DATED 17 TH JUNE, 2013, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD GIVEN DETAILED REPLY DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2013 AND THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING WITH THE CIT, HISAR. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT SUBSISTS TILL DAT E AND THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12AA HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED BY THE DEPARTMENT SO FAR. WE FIND THAT AFTER THE DETAILED REPLY DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE I SSUED BY THE CIT REGARDING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA, CONS IDERABLE TIME HAS ITA-4374/DEL/2013 9 PASSED WITH NO ADVERSE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE FATE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80G COULD NOT BE WITHHELD FOR THIS REASON. WE FIND THAT A READING OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80G( 5) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80G HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED ALL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN WERE FULFILLED BY T HE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE VARIOUS OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS ME NTIONED IN CLAUSE (5) OF THE REGISTERED TRUST DEED OF THE ASSESSEE, A COPY THEREOF FILED IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND WE FIND THAT THEY WERE CLEARLY CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND IT HAS BEEN SPECIFI CALLY PROVIDED THEREIN THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DISCRIMINATION ON ACC OUNT OF RELIGION, CASTE, LANGUAGE ETC. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPART MENT THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATU RE. WE FIND THAT WITH THE SAME OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS MENTIO NED IN CLAUSE (5) OF THE REGISTERED TRUST DEED, THE CIT, HISAR HAS GRANTED THE ASSESSEE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD BE SAFELY INFERRED THAT THE CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE NEVER IN DOUBT BY THE DEPARTMENT. T HE OTHER CONDITION FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80G AS PROVIDED IN RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 IS THAT THE COMMIS SIONER AFTER CAUSING SUCH ENQUIRY AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY SHOULD BE SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH INSTITU TION OR FUND. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE CIT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AG AINST THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FIVE REASONS SUMMARIZED IN PARAGRA PH 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 11. THE FIRST REASON GIVEN BY THE CIT FOR REJECTING T HE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80G WAS THAT THERE WAS NO CORRELATION WITH TH E OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND ITS WORKING EXCEPT CONSTRUCTION OF GAUSH ALA AND THAT THE OTHER OBJECTS REMAINED ON PAPER. WE FIND T HAT THERE IS NO ITA-4374/DEL/2013 10 LEGAL PROVISION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL UNDERTAKE ALL ITS OBJECTS, AS MENTIONED IN THE TRUST DEED, SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE FIRST OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS DETAILED IN CLAUSE (5) OF THE TRUST DEED WAS CONSTRUCTION OF GAUSHALA AND THE CIT HIMSELF HAS ADMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS UNDERTAKEN THE ACTIVITIES WITH REGARD T O THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF GAUSHALA. IN THESE F ACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT UNDERTAK E ALL OF ITS OBJECTS AS MAY BE MENTIONED IN THE TRUST DEED TOGETHER , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS REASONING OF THE LEARNED CIT IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 12. THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE CIT THAT THE WORKING OF THE TRUST WAS NEITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES ENUMERATED IN T HE TRUST DEED NOR RECORD HAS BEEN KEPT, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF PASSING OF RESOLUTION BY ALL THE TRUSTEES FOR EVERY OCC ASION. THE WORKING OF THE TRUST MAY BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE OFFIC E BEARERS OF THE TRUST. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SO FAR AS THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE TRUST WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND WERE GENUINELY CHARITABLE IN NATURE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BE NEFIT OF SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. 13. THE THIRD OBJECTION OF THE CIT FOR REJECTING TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80G WAS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND VOUCHERS MAINTAINED AND PRODUCED WERE NOT RELIABLE AND DID NOT DISCLOSE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BEFORE US THAT IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT THAT THE FINAL ACCOUN T SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PAST MANY YEARS DID NOT DISCLOSE THE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMIS SION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT COULD NOT POINT OUT A SINGLE ENTRY OR ASSET FOUND OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. WE FIND THAT THE CIT HAS POINTED OUT SOME DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS AND THE VOUCHERS MAINTAI NED AND ITA-4374/DEL/2013 11 PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ANY DI SCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNTS OR IN THE VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS OF THE TRUST COULD BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE CLINCH THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN O.P. JIN DAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY (SUPRA), THE JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT (CASE PERTAINS TO HARYANA STATE), IT WAS HELD THAT AT THE T IME OF GRANTING APPROVAL FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G, THE OBJEC T OF THE TRUST WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS CA N BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF THE ASSESSM ENT. IN SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY (SUP RA), HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI), THE CIT SHOULD NOT COMPUTE INCOME UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN N.N. DESAI CHAR ITABLE TRUST (SUPRA), HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE EN QUIRY SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS AND THE AUTHOR ITY EXAMINING QUESTION UNDER SECTION 80G SHOULD NOT ACT AS ASSESSING OFF ICER. IN GAUR BRAHMIN VIDYA PRACHARINI SABHA (SUPRA), HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ALL CONDITIONS LA ID DOWN UNDER RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH , THE TRUST IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF MAYO COLLEGE OLD BOYS ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), THE DELHI TRIBUNAL HELD THAT DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTI ON 12AA, RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G(5) COULD NOT BE DENIE D. THE OTHER DECISIONS IN KARUNYA RURAL HEALTH CARE SOCIETY (SUPRA) OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND IN M.J. EDUCATION TRUST (SU PRA) OF BANGALORE TRIBUNAL SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN GURU GOBIN D SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. CIT, BHATINDA [2009] 118 I TD 207 (ASR.), THE AMRITSAR TRIBUNAL IN A CASE WHERE REGISTRATION UNDER S ECTION 12AA WAS GRANTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE COMMISSIONER FIND VARIOU S IRREGULARITIES ITA-4374/DEL/2013 12 IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, IT WAS HELD THA T THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12AA COULD NOT BE CANCELLED DUE TO THE IRREGULARITIES FOUND IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. WE ARE AWARE THAT THIS CASE PERTAINS TO THE CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, BUT, THE RATIO OF TH IS DECISION WAS APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF BENEFIT UNDER SEC TION 80G OF THE ACT. 14. AS REGARDS THE FOURTH OBJECTION OF THE CIT THAT T HE TRUSTEES WERE APPOINTED BECAUSE THEY BELONGED TO A PARTICULAR ORGA NIZATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO CHOOSE ITS TRUSTEES AND THE CIT COULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SAME AND SHOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN COMMENTING UPON THE DESIRABILITY OR OTHERWISE IN THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEES. 15. REGARDING THE FIFTH AND THE LAST OBJECTION OF TH E CIT THAT THE FUNDS WERE NOT PROPERLY UTILIZED AND ALL RECORDED PU RCHASES AND EXPENSES IN THE ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS SEEM TO BE INCORRECT AND, THEREFORE, MONEY SEEMS TO HAVE SIPHONED OFF, WE FIND T HAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS OBSERVATION OF THE CIT AND MERELY BECAU SE SOME OF THE VOUCHERS WERE NOT FOUND COMPLETE, IT COULD NOT BE SAI D THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE OR WERE NO T CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IT I S NOT THE CASE OF THE CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN SOME ACTIVITY, WHICH COULD BE CALLED NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. REGARDING THE SIPHONING OFF THE MONEY, THE SAME IS A MERE IMAGINATION ON THE PART OF THE OFFICER. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COMPARATIVE CHART OF RATES CHARGED BY M/S JINDAL MECTEC PRIVATE LIMITED FOR THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTING SHEDS IN THE ASSESSEES GAUSHALA, COMPARING THE SAME WITH THE R ATES CHARGED BY THEM FROM OTHERS. WE FIND THAT M/S JINDAL MECTEC PRIVATE LIMITED IS A CONCERN OF SHRI PAWAN KUMAR JINDAL, A T RUSTEE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE THE G.R. ITA-4374/DEL/2013 13 NUMBERS ALONG WITH TRUCK NUMBERS WHICH HAVE TRANSPORT ED THE MATERIAL TO THE SITE OF THE ASSESSEES GAUSHALA. THESE ITE MS WERE MEANT FOR USE IN COVERING ROOFS OF COWSHEDS AND THESE W ERE MADE OF A SPECIFIC MATERIAL THAT MAKES THE COWSHEDS COOL IN SUMMER S AND NORMAL IN WINTERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPIES OF INVOICES OF FEW DAYS BEFORE AND AFTER THE RELEVANT DATE OF 15 TH MARCH, 2012 WHEN THE SAID MATERIAL WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEES GAUSHALA. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT M/S JINDAL MECTEC PRIVATE LIMITED HAS SUP PLIED SIMILAR MATERIAL OF SHEDS TO SIX OTHER PARTIES AT DIFFERENT PLA CES IN HARYANA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UTTAR PRADESH, AND THE RATES CHAR GED FROM THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE MATERIAL WERE EVEN LESS THAN THE R ATES CHARGED FROM THE OUTSIDE OTHER PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DE TAILS OF AMOUNT OF CONCESSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST FROM M /S JINDAL MECTEC PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH SHOWS THAT IT WAS BENEFIT TED BY THE DISCOUNT RANGING FROM 10% TO 56%. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTRUSTED THE WORK OF CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION OF GAUSHAL A SHEDS TO A CONCERN OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEES, IT SHOULD NOT BE PRESUM ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SIPHONED OFF THE AMOUNT FOR THE BENEFIT OF SO ME OF THE TRUSTEES. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) COULD BE INVOKED WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT ONLY IF THERE IS A SIPHONING OFF THE FU NDS FROM THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOME TRUSTEES OR RELATED PERSONS. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DO NOT SUGGEST ANY SIPHONING OFF THE F UNDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR TRUSTEE OR A GROUP OF TRU STEES AND, THEREFORE, THIS REASONING OF THE LEARNED CIT IS DEVOID OF ANY ME RIT AND, IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 16. REGARDING THE OBJECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT-DR T HAT IN CASE OF DISSOLUTION OF THE TRUST, THE PROVISION OF HANDING OVER THE SAME TO RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEWAK SANGH HARYANA STATE WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WE FIND THAT THIS OBJECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR THE REASON THAT WITH THE SAME CLAUSES OF THE TRUST DEED, THE CIT, HISAR ITA-4374/DEL/2013 14 HAS GRANTED THE ASSESSEE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THE MAIN ISSUE OF ENQUIRY THAT THE CIT WAS T O CAUSE WAS THAT WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND WERE GENUINELY UNDE RTAKEN IN A CHARITABLE MANNER. IN SHRI SAI SAMARPAN TRUST CO. V S. CIT, ROHTAK [2009] 27 SOT 423 (DELHI), THE DELHI TRIBUNAL HELD THAT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE TRUST DEED ALONG WITH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, IT CLE ARLY SHOWED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE GENUINE AND THAT BEI NG SO, THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ENTITLED TO THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT SHOW THAT ANY ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT UNDER SEC TION 80G OF THE ACT AS DETAILED IN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80G(5) READ W ITH RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH OR THAT TH E ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINELY CHARITABLE IN NATURE. REGA RDING THE VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KUMAR TOTA LING TO ` 1,35,000/- ON DIFFERENT DATES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE GOODS WERE PURCHASED FROM M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KUMAR, OLD ANAJ MANDI, HISAR FOR USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF GAUSH ALA AND THAT ALL THE ESTIMATES WERE ON THEIR LETTER HEAD PADS AND IN TH EIR OWN HANDWRITING AND THE PAYMENT OF ` 1,35,000/- WAS MADE ON 23 RD APRIL, 2012, 24 TH APRIL, 2012 AND 25 TH APRIL, 2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER FILED A WRITTEN REQUEST THAT IN CASE IT IS CONSIDERED T HAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT MADE PAYMENT TO THE AFORESAID CONCERN, T HEN M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KUMAR SHOULD BE SUMMONED AND OPPORTUNITY T O CROSS- EXAMINE BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT NO O PPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KUMAR WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED CIT-DR THAT NO STATEM ENT OF M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KUMAR WAS RECORDED AND THEREFORE THE RE WAS NO OCCASION TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMI NING THEM, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE CIT HAS TRIED TO USE THE VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KUMAR AGAINST THE A SSESSEE AND ITA-4374/DEL/2013 15 ACCORDINGLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED PRINCI PLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH TH E SAME AND OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE M/S BHIM SAIN SURESH KUMA R SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY WHEN A WRIT TEN REQUEST TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE SAID PARTY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TRU ST. 17. THE LEARNED CIT-DR HAS REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT ONE SHRI RAM NIWAS JAIN HAS SIGNED THE VOUCHERS, WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON AND, THEREFORE , SHOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THE VARIOUS VOUCHERS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT SHRI RAM NIWAS JAIN HAS VOLUNTEERED HI MSELF TO THE CAUSE OF CHARITY BY SERVING THE GAUSHALA AND, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON THAT A PERSON, OTHER THAN THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST, MAY VOLUNTEER HIMSELF FOR THE CHARITABLE WORK OF A TRUST /SOCIETY, WITHOUT BEING EVEN A TRUSTEE OR MEMBER THEREOF. THE TRUSTEES ARE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO AUTHORIZE SUCH PERSON OFFERING VOLUNTARY SERV ICES, WITHOUT ANY LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH A PERSON, TO RENDER HIS SERVICES F OR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHARITABLE CAUSE OF THE TRUST AND MAY AUTHORIZE TO CHECK THE DAY TO DAY SMALL PAYMENTS BEING MADE ON BEHALF OF THE TRUST T O ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO LEAKAGE OF FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. WE FI ND THAT ALL THE TRUSTEES WERE RENDERING HONORARY SERVICES AND, THEREFOR E, COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO INDULGE IN DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST. 18. WE FIND THAT UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ESTA BLISHED ONLY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE P UBLIC AT LARGE WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION WITH REGARD TO THE RELIGI ON, CASTE, LANGUAGE ETC. AND ITS OBJECTS ARE CLEARLY CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF EARNING PROFIT AT ANY POINT OF TIME BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST OR ANY OF ITS TRUSTEES. NONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY LEA RNED CIT FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80G, HAS ANY MERIT AND WERE CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST ITA-4374/DEL/2013 16 HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BEN EFIT UNDER SECTION 80G AS DETAILED IN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. IN THIS VIE W OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF GRANT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. H OWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN CASE THERE IS ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE MAI NTENANCE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR EXPENSES IN THE FO RM OF VOUCHERS ETC. TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO MAKE SUITABLE DISALLOWANCE, WHEREVER SO REQUIRED AS PER LAW, WHILE F RAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE CIT(EXEMPT IONS), CHANDIGARH (WITH WHOM JURISDICTION IS STATED TO LIE) I S DIRECTED TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80G TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND PAS S NECESSARY ORDER WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR TARVINDER SINGH KAPOOR ) )) ) (G.C. GUPTA) (G.C. GUPTA) (G.C. GUPTA) (G.C. GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : KESHAV MADHAV DHAM TRUST, KESHAV MADHAV DHAM TRUST, KESHAV MADHAV DHAM TRUST, KESHAV MADHAV DHAM TRUST, VILLAGE KABREL, TEHSIL ADAMPUR, VILLAGE KABREL, TEHSIL ADAMPUR, VILLAGE KABREL, TEHSIL ADAMPUR, VILLAGE KABREL, TEHSIL ADAMPUR, DISTRICT HISAR, HARYANA. DISTRICT HISAR, HARYANA. DISTRICT HISAR, HARYANA. DISTRICT HISAR, HARYANA. 2. RESPONDENT : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR- -- -14, HISAR. 14, HISAR. 14, HISAR. 14, HISAR. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR