Kaivalya Charitable Trust, Pune V. CIT-I, Pune

ITA 578/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85101 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.578/PN/2013 KAIVALYA CHARITABLE TRUST, FLAT NO.6, BALAJI HEIGHTS, KHARADI ROAD, CHANDANAGAR, PUNE 411014 MAHARASHTRA PAN NO.AABTK9783F .. APPELLANT VS. CIT-I, PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. M.S. VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 27-10-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-10-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 24-12-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE RE FUSING GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING ON 07- 04- 2014. HOWEVER, SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, A NOTICE THROUGH RPAD WAS ISSU ED FIXING THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON 03-07-2014. SINC E ON 03- 07-2014, NOBODY APPEARED, FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 27-10-2014. HOWEVER, TODAY WHEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CA LLED, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY PET ITION 2 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WAS FILED. THEREFO RE, THIS MATTER IS BEING DISPOSED OF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED THE APPLICATION IN FORM 10A SEEKING REGISTRATION U/ S.12A. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP VIDE TRUST DEED DATED 16-01-2012 UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950 VIDE NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 15-03-2012. ON THE BAS IS OF THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CIT C ALLING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING OUT A NY ACTIVITY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT AT PARA 3 TO 4 OF THE ORDER READS AS UNDER : 3. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE SUBJECT APPLICA TION IS DISPOSED OF AS UNDER : 3.1 REFERENCE HAS BEEN ALREADY MADE TO THE INDIC ATION EMANATING FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPLICANT AL ONG WITH ITS APPLICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT IT HAD CARR IED OUT CERTAIN BLOOD TESTS FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN. THE SUBMISSIONS NOW MADE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING ONLY GO TO FURTHER ADD TO T HE INDICATION THAT THE AFORESAID ACTIVITY HAD NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE APPLICANT TRUST PER SE. INSTEAD, THE SAME SAID HAD B EEN CARRIED OUT BY DR. RAMKISHAN G. KALALE, THE CHIEF TRUSTEE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. DR.RAMKISHAN G. KALALE, BY THE APPLICANT' S OWN SUBMISSION, IS SAID TO BE FOLLOWING THE PRACTICE OF CARR YING OUT TESTS ON POOR AND NEEDY PERSONS FREE OF COST OR AT REASO NABLE COSTS. IN FACT, THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPLICANT CARRIES THE SEAL OF 'KALALE'S SHREE PATHOLOGY LAB' WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAID A CTIVITY. IF THAT WERE THE CASE THE APPLICANT TRUST'S NAME WOULD HAVE FI GURED IN THE DETAILS, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. 3.2 IN ORDER THAT REGISTRATION U/S.12A CAN BE GRA NT TO A TRUST OR INSTITUTION, ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL PRE-REQUISITES IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD BE SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE 3 ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE SUPRA, THE APPLICANT CANNO T BE SAID TO HAVE CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITY SOFAR. AS A RESULT, NO SATISFACTION CAN BE FORMED AT THIS STAGE REGARDING THE GENUINENESS O F THE APPLICANT'S ACTIVITIES. THUS THE ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE R EGARDING SUCH SATISFACTION IS NOT MET. FOR THIS REASON, THE APPLIC ANT'S REQUEST FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A CANNOT BE AC CEDED TO AT THIS STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IN FO RM NO.10A IS HEREBY REJECTED. 4. THIS ORDER, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICA NT TRUST FROM MAKING A FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.1 2A AFTER MAKING DUE COMPLIANCES, I.E. AFTER CARRYING OUT ACTI VITIES ON ITS OWN, IN WHICH CASE SUCH FRESH APPLICATION SHALL BE CON SIDERED ON MERITS. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2012 OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -I, PUNE, REFUSING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, PREJUDGED, A ND BAD IN LAW AS REGISTRATION IS NOT DEPENDENT ON COMMENCEMENT OF CH ARITABLE ACTIVITY. 2. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. 3. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, RECTIFY, CLARIFY AND/OR WITHDRAW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND ANY OF THESE GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT T HE TIME OF APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE T HE LD.CIT WHILE REFUSING GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A HAS GI VEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAI D TO HAVE CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITY SO FAR FOR WHICH NO SATISF ACTION CAN BE FORMED AT THIS STAGE REGARDING THE GENUINENESS O F THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ESSENT IAL PREREQUISITE REGARDING THE SATISFACTION IS NOT MADE FOR WHICH REGISTRATION U/S.12A CANNOT BE MET. THE ABOVE FIND ING OF THE LD. CIT IS BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. WE 4 DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT R EFUSING REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE TRUST. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-10-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT-I, PUNE 4. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE