M/s. Great Asian Institute of Management & Technology, New Delhi V. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 5311/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 531120114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH SR DR HEARING ON
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT SINGHANIA
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 5311/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S GREAT ASIAN INSTITUTE OF VS. DCIT (EXEMPTION S), MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI. FB-26, TAGORE GARDEN, NEW DELHI-110027 PAN: AADCG8471D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH.AMIT SINGHANIA, CA. REVENUE BY : SH. SATPAL SINGH, SR.DR. HEARING ON : 19/12/2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE : ORDER PER I.C.SUDHIR, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED ORDER DATED 22.8.2012 O F LD. DIT PASSED U/S 12AA (1) (B) READ WITH SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ( LD. DIT) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 12A (1) (AA) OF THE ACT. 1.1 THAT THE LD. DIT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS NOT YET STARTED ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. ITA NO. 5311/DEL/2012 2 1.2 THAT THE LD. DIT HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THA T THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY STARTED ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVI TIES BY PROVIDING SCHOLARSHIPS TO NEEDY GIRL STUDENTS. 1.3 THAT THE LD. DIT HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT STARTED ACTIVITIES UNDER ALL THE OBJECTS SET OUT IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) (L D. DIT), HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 80G(5) (VI) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. DIT IS BAD IN LAW A ND VOID AB- INITIO. 2. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT YET STARTED ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND WITHO UT APPRECIATING THIS MATERIAL FACT, THE LD. DIT HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION PRES ENTED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 12A (1) (AA) FOR THE REGISTRATION. THE LD. DIT HAS IGNORED THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT INITIAL REGISTRATION U/S 12 AA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT STA RTED ACTIVITIES UNDER ALL THE OBJECTS SET OUT IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. I N SUPPORT THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. FOUNDATION OF OPTHALMIC & OPTOMETRY RESEARC H EDUCATION CENTRE, ITA NO. 1687/2010, JUDGMENT DATED 16.8.2012. 3. THE LD. DR TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE REJECTION OF THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT FOR. ITA NO. 5311/DEL/2012 3 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE CITED DECISION OF HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD IN THE CITED DECISION THAT THE STATUTE DOES NO T PROHIBIT OR ENJOIN THE COMMISSIONER FROM REGISTERING TRUST SOLELY BASED ON ITS OBJECTS, WITHOUT ANY ACTIVITY, IN THE CASE OF A NEWLY REGISTERED TRUST. IT WAS HELD THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT PRESCRIBE A WAITING PERIOD, FOR A TRUST TO QUALIFY ITSELF FOR REGISTRATION. WE THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RA TIO LAID DOWN IN THE CITED DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. FOUNDATION OF OPTHALMIC & OPTOMETRY RESEARCH EDUCATION CENTRE, (SUPRA) HOLD THAT THE DIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT SOLELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT TAKE N INITIAL STEPS TOWARDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL FOR PROVIDING EDUCATION AS ITS OBJECT. 5. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. DIT WITH DIRECTION TO ALLOW THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT FOR IN VIEW OF THE DE CISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. FOUNDATION OF OPTHALMIC & OPTOMETRY RESEARCH EDUCATION CENTRE, (SUPRA). THE G ROUND NOS. 1, 1.1 TO 1.3 ARE THUS ALLOWED. 6. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 2 QUESTIONING THE ORDER OF THE LD. DIT IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S 80G(5) (VI) OF THE ACT IS CONCE RNED THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE TO PREFER A SEPARATE APPEAL FOR THE SAME BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL, IF SO ITA NO. 5311/DEL/2012 4 ADVISED. THE GROUND NO. 2 IN THE PRESENT FORM THUS CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 7. IN RESULT APPEAL ON GROUND NOS. 1, 1.1 TO 1.3 IS AL LOWED. 8. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DA Y OF 21/12/2012. SD/- SD/- ( J. S. REDDY ) (I.C. SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/12/2012 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(APPEALS) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR