KHAGOL MANDAL, MUMBAI V. D.I.T. (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 4538/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1712 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MEENA; HARKAMAL SOHI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Condonation of delay
• Section: 80G; 12A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 KHAGOL MANDAL C/O S.R. KERKAR, 11/77 GODREJ COLONY, CREEK SIDE PIROJSHA NAGAR, VIKHROLI(E) MUMBAI-400 079 [PAN : AAATK4876A] VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ROOM NO.616, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LALBAUG, PAREL MUMBAI-400 012 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. NISHANT THAKKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R.P.MEENA & HARKAMAL SOHI DATE OF HEARING : 02-04-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 07-06-2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2011 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME T AX (EXEMPTIONS) (IN SHORT THE DIRECTOR) REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE DATED 07.06.2008 SEEKING CONTINUATION OF RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 8 0G OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL 2. THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS A TRUST AND A VOLUNTA RY ORGANISATION ENGAGED IN CONDUCTING STUDIES AND PROGRAMMES IN THE FIELD OF ASTRONOMY. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION AS A C HARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT BY CIT, MUMBAI-4 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.1987. IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUS T WAS ALSO RECOGNISED UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT RIGHT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TILL THE LAST OF THE RENEWALS DATED 05.12.2005, WHICH WAS UPTO 31 .03.2008, I.E. UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE APPLIC ATION DATED 17.06.2008, ASSESSEE MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE DIRECTOR SEEKIN G CONTINUATION OF RECOGNITION EARLIER GRANTED UNDER SECTION 80G OF TH E ACT. BY WAY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE DIRECTOR HAS REJECTED THE APPLI CATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT-TRUST WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY CHA RITABLE ACTIVITY. AS PER THE DIRECTOR, THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS SHOWS THAT NO EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HAS BEEN INCURRED/DEBITED BY THE APPLICANT-TRUST DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS PERIOD. AGAINST SUCH A DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- GROUND I : THE DIT(E) ERRED IN REJECTING THE RENEWAL APPLICA TION DT. 17-06-2008 FOR APPROVAL OF THE INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SE C. 80G LONG AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS STIPULATED IN SEC. 80G(5) READ WITH RULE I I AA. THE DIT(E) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT (I) ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL APPLICATIONS WERE DULY ACCOMPANIED. (II) HAVING COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THE O RDER ON THE RENEWAL APPLICATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BEFORE 31-12-200 8. (III) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ACTION WITHIN SUCH PERIO D OF SIX MONTHS THE RENEWAL WAS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED THE APPELLANT THEREF ORE CONTENDS THAT 3 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL THE ORDER OF REJECTION MADE ON 07-06-2011 BEYOND THE S TATUTORY STIPULATION IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, IN EFFECTIVE AND BAD IN LAW . GROUND II : WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION THE A PPLICANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT : (I) THE DIT(E)S, OBSERVATIONS IN PARA 2 OF THE REJECT ION ORDER DT. 07-06-2011 IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED SINCE THE REQUIREMENTS MENTIONED THE RE IN WERE ALREADY PLACED BEFORE HIM AND THE APPELLANT HOLDS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 17-06-2008. (II) THE NOTICE DT. 07-01-2011 IS BEYOND THE STIPUL ATED STATUTORY PERIOD AND IS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS INEFFECTIVE AND BAD IN LAW. GROUND III : THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE LAW AS IT STOO D BEFORE THE AMENDMENT ON 01-09-2009 WAS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE AND THEREFORE ASSUMPTION MADE BY DIT(E) IN PARA 5 ARE BASED ON SURMISES AND A RE UNWARRANTED AND THE REJECTION BASED ON THESE OBSERVATIONS AND THE CONCLUS ION DRAWN THEREFROM IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS BROUGHT OUT THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 324 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EXPLAINING T HE DELAY, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO AN AFFIDAVIT FURNISHED B Y ONE MR. SAGUN RADHAKRISHNA KERKAR, A TRUSTEE OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUS T. A COPY OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.01.2014 HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECOR D. IN TERMS OF THE AVERMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN, REASONS FOR THE DELAY HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED ON ACCOUNT OF ILLNESS OF ONE, SHRI SAMEER KADAM, TRUST EE OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OU T THAT THE SAID SHRI SAMEER KADAM WAS THE TRUSTEE LOOKING AFTER THE INCOME-TAX MATTERS OF THE TRUST AND DUE TO HIS RECURRENT ILLNESS, THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY IS UNINTENTIONAL AND IT MAY BE CONDONED, 4 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT IS A CASE O F A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION WHICH IS DULY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE A CT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS NOT ASSAILED T HE BONA FIDES OF THE REASONS CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY, BU T HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DELAY WAS QUITE INORDINATE. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL STANDS, IN OUR VIEW, THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT LACKING IN BONA FIDES AS THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE US. IN ANY CASE, IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITIO N THAT IT IS NOT THE LENGTH OF THE DELAY, BUT THE QUALITY OF THE REASONS FOR DELAY , WHICH SHALL PREVAIL IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER A CONDONATION OF DELAY IS MERITED. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS., 167 ITR 471 (SC) HELD THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE CAUSE OF JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS, WHILE DEALIN G WITH THE CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATIONS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTI RETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT A ND PROPER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE AFORESAID DECIS ION WAS ANNOUNCED BEFORE THE PARTIES, AND THEREFORE BOTH THE COUNSELS WERE H EARD WITH RESPECT TO THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE. 6. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POIN TED OUT THAT ON POINT OF LAW AS ALSO ON FACTS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR WAS UNTENABLE INASMUCH AS THE DIRECTOR HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICT ION IN DENYING THE CONTINUATION OF RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G OF TH E ACT MERELY ON THE GROUND OF HIS PERCEPTION THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS IN CURRED TOWARDS THE 5 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. WHILE ASSERTING THAT SUCH AN OBSERVATION WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT T HAT WHILE EVALUATING ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR RECOGNITION UNDER SECTIO N 80G OF THE ACT, THE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SEC . 80G(5) OF THE ACT ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE , ASSESSEE HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE REASONS BROUGHT OUT BY THE DIRECTOR ARE, IN ANY CASE, UNTENABLE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT CONTINUES TO SUBSIST AND EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENTS, THERE IS NO ADVERSE VIEW TAKEN SO AS TO JEOPARDISE ASSESSEES C LAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 11/12 OF THE ACT. ON THE POINT OF LAW, TH E LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS :- (I) SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. CIT, 278 ITR 262 (P&H); (II) CIT VS. SEWA BHARTI HARYANA PRADESH, 325 ITR 5 99 (P&H); AND, (III) SHRI CHANDRABHAN ATHARE PATIL GRAM NAVODAYA T RUST VS CIT-1, PUNE, [2012] 22 TAXMANN.COM 406 (PUNE) 7. INSOFAR AS THE FACTUAL ASPECTS ARE CONCERNED, TH E LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF T HE PRECEDING THREE YEARS TO POINT OUT THAT SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS HAVE BEEN INCUR RED TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. FURTHERMORE, A TABULATION OF THE LEV EL OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED VIS-A-VIS THE INCOME, FOR THE PERIOD STARTING FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO 2017-18 HAS ALSO BEEN FURNISHED TO SUPPORT THE C LAIM THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME HAS BEEN SPENT DIRECTLY TO WARDS THE ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. IN THIS MANNER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR IS SOUGHT TO BE ASSAILED BY THE APPELLANT. 6 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS DEFENDED THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR BY PLACING RE LIANCE THEREON AND ALSO REITERATING THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR TO T HE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) GANJAM NAGAPPA & SON TRUST VS DIT, 269 ITR 59 ( KARNATAKA); (II) VISHAL KHANNA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS UOI, 356 ITR 442 (ALLAHABAD); (III) MADANI MUSAFIR KHANA WELFARE SOCIETY VS CIT, 264 ITR 481 (PATNA); AND, (IV) VISHWA BUDHA PARISHAD VS CIT, 264 ITR 357 (PAT NA) 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. AS OUR DISCUSSION IN THE EARLIER PARAS SHOW, THE MOOT QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER THE DIRECTOR WAS JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CONTINUATION OF RECOG NITION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. SEC. 80G OF THE ACT ENUMERATES CLAUSES (I) TO (V) WHICH CONTAINS VARIOUS CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWING RECOGNITION UNDER S ECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE INQUIRIES THAT ARE PERMI SSIBLE TO BE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR AT THE STAGE OF EVALUATING AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY (SUP RA) . AS PER THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE SCOPE OF INQUIRY BY THE DIR ECTOR WHILE DEALING WITH AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT EXTENDS TO ELIGIBILITY TO EXEMPTION UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, REFE RRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (5) THEREOF, BUT DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE ACTUAL COMPUTAT ION OF INCOME UNDER THE ACT. SIMILARLY, IN THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SEWA BHARTI HARYANA PRADESH (SUPRA) , THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT REITERATED SIMILAR PROPOSITION. IN THIS VIEW OF TH E MATTER, WE MAY NOW 7 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL EXAMINE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE DIRECTOR IN TH E PRESENT CASE IN ORDER TO DENY THE RECOGNITION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S ECTION 80G OF THE ACT. AS PER THE DIRECTOR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SPENT ANY MONEY TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, T HE SAID OBJECTION IS QUITE OTIOSE TO THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE EVALUATED BY THE DIRECTOR AT THE STAGE OF CONSIDERING APPLICATION UN DER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT. SOME OF THE GERMANE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CAS E WHICH CLEARLY STAND OUT ARE AS FOLLOWS; THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO BE A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ONS 11/12 OF THE ACT; THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 11/12 OF THE ACT; AND, THAT SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND TILL ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09, ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE AC T. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID FEATURES, AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION, MUCH LESS A FINDING BY THE DIRECTOR, THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE FROM THE PAST YEARS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE DIRECTOR IN DENYING THE RECOGNITION SOUGHT U NDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. 10. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE FIND THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE DIRECTOR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES OR THAT MONEY HAS NOT BEEN SPENT TOWARDS ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS IS QUITE MI SPLACED. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E FILED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IS PLACED COPY OF THE PERIODICALS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS WHICH ARE BEING PUBLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IN THE FIELD OF ASTRONOMY. IN PARTICULAR, REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO AN ARTICLE P UBLISHED IN AN 8 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATION AL ASTRONOMICAL UNION, WHICH BRINGS OUT THE ROLE BEING PLAYED BY THE ASSES SEE-TRUST IN POPULARISING ASTRONOMY IN INDIA. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID ARTIC LE, WHICH EXHAUSTIVELY BRINGS OUT THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST, NAMELY, WEEKLY MEETINGS AND LIBRARY, SKY OBSERVATIO N PROGRAMMES, EXHIBITIONS, SLIDE SHOWS, BASIC AND ADVANCED COURSE S IN ASTRONOMY FOR STUDENTS, CONDUCTING OF STUDY TOURS, WORKSHOPS, CON FERENCE AND SPECIAL EVENTS, ETC. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE THAT SINCE ITS INCEPTION 20 YEARS AGO, ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS BEEN PUBLISHING A BULLETIN CALLED KHAGOL WARTA IN MARATHI, WHICH IS VERY WELL RECEIVED BY THE RESEARCHERS AND STUDENTS OF ASTRONOMY. OUR ATTENTI ON HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN TO THE LIST OF PUBLICATIONS SINCE 1986, WHICH HAS B EEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. ALL THESE ASPECTS, IN OUR VIEW, DO NOT LEND SUPPORT TO THE PERCEPTION OF THE DIRECTOR THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS NOT INCURRING EXPENDITURE TOWARDS ITS OBJECTS. 11. EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE LEVEL OF EXPENDITURE IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE PERUSED THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE STATEMENT ENCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK FOR VARIOUS YEARS AND FI ND THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE DIRECTOR IS DEVOID OF FACTUAL SUPPORT. IN FACT , A PERUSAL OF THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT THE STREAMS OF INC OME ARE ON ACCOUNT OF LIBRARY SUBSCRIPTION, SALE OF BOOKS, SUBSCRIPTION T OWARDS ITS PERIODICALS, DONATIONS AND ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION FEE, ETC. ALL TH ESE GOES TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE IS EARNING INCOMES FROM CARRYING ON ACTIVI TIES WHICH ARE IN THE FIELD OF POPULARISING ASTRONOMY AND, THEREFORE, TO SAY TH AT THERE IS NO EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS THE FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECTS IS OBVIOUSLY AN INCORRECT ASSERTION ON THE PART OF THE DIRECTOR. I N ANY CASE, WE FIND THAT THE 9 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL DIRECTOR HAS MADE ONLY A BALD ASSERTION WITHOUT REF ERRING TO ANY SPECIFIC MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEA THAT ASSESSEE HAS N OT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THER EFORE, ON FACTS ALSO, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE STAND OF THE DIRECTO R. 12. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADANI MUSAFIR KHANA WELFARE SOCIETY (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE DIRECTOR. WE HAV E PERUSED THE SAID DECISION AND FIND THAT THE SAME IS WHOLLY INAPPLICA BLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE PATNA HIGH COURT, THERE WAS A FACT-SITUATION THAT SINCE INCEPTION ASSESSEE WAS IN CURRING EXPENDITURE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING COMPLEX, WHICH W AS A NON-CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. OBVIOUSLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT OUT TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE HAS SPENT ANY OF ITS FUNDS IN ANY NON-CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. 13. SIMILARLY, THE RELIANCE BY THE DIRECTOR ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWA BUDHA PARISHAD (SUPRA) IS ALSO MISPLACED. THE SAID DECISION HAS ALSO BEEN RENDERE D IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS PECULIAR FACTS AND IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACT-SITU ATION IN THE INSTANT CASE WHEREIN, ON FACTS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE IS I NDEED ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES TOWARDS THE FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS O F THE TRUST. 14. INSOFAR AS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. DR ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GANJAM NAGAPPA & SON TRUST (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THEREIN ALSO THE FACT-S ITUATION WAS QUITE DIFFERENT. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT, THERE WAS A FINDING OF FACT TO THE EFFECT THAT FUNDS OF THE TRUST WERE BEI NG USED FOR NON-CHARITABLE 10 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL PURPOSES. OBVIOUSLY, IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING OF THE DIRECTOR AND NOR IS THERE ANY FINDING IN THE ASSESS MENT STAGE SO AS TO JUSTIFY ANY MISAPPLICATION OF FUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GANJAM NAGAPPA & SON TRUST (SUPRA) DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 15. INSOFAR AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABA D HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHAL KHANNA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IS CONCERNED, THE SAME, IN OUR VIEW, IS ALSO INA PPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE FACT-SITUATION . IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, THE OBJECT OF THE TRU ST WAS TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A CHARITABLE HOSPITAL, WHEREAS FACTUALLY I T WAS FOUND THAT THE TRUST WAS DIVERTING MONIES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING COMPLEX. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DE CISION OF THE COMMISSIONER IN DENYING RECOGNITION TO THE TRUST UN DER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. QUITE CLEARLY, THE FACT-SITUATION IN THE INST ANT CASE STANDS ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOOTING INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SAY THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR ANY NON-CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET-ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR WITH DIRECTIONS TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE DATED 17.06.2008 SEEKING CONTINUATION OF RECOGNITION GRANTED EARLIER UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D, AS ABOVE. 11 ITA NO. 4538/MUM/2012 KHAGOL MANDAL ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE : 07 TH JUNE, 2019 *SSL* 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. COPY TO : 8. 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, A BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI 9.