Skandagiri Sri Subrahmanyaswamy Sanathana Dharma Trust, Secunderabad V. The Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 65/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2829 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: CH G MURALIKRISHNA MURTHY
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1562/HYD/2012 AND ITA NO.65/HYD/2013 SKANDAGIRI SRI SUBRAMANYASWAMY -V- DIT (E), HYDERABAD. SANATHANA DHARMA TRUST, SECUNDERABAD. PAN:AALTS3890B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI CH.G. MURALI KRISHNAMURTHY RESPONDENT BY : SMT. AMISH A S. GUPT DATE OF HEARING: 29-4-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29-4-2013 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF DIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, SINCE ASSESSEE IS COMMON IN THESE TWO APPEALS, THESE ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FIRST LET US DEAL WITH ITA NO.1562/HYD/2012 . 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT IS WITH REGARD TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIT (E) REJECTING APPELLANTS APPLICA TION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE APPELLANT IS A TRUST CREATED UNDER A TRUST DEED DATED 7-2-2012. THE OBJECTS OF THE TR UST ARE SET ITA NOS.1562 OF 2012 AND 65 OF 20 13 SKANDAGIRI SRI SUBRAMANYASWAMY SANATHANA DHARMA TRUST, SECBAD. ================== 2 OUT AT CLAUSE 9 OF THE TRUST DEED. THE APPELLANT AP PLIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER BEFORE THE DIT (E) FOR GETTING IT SELF REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THE DIT (E) DIRECTED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, BO OKS F ACCOUNTS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION. H E FURTHER ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE APPELLANT FOR FURNISH ING DETAILS ON SPECIFIC POINTS RAISED THEREIN. THE APPELLANT APPE ARED BEFORE THE DIT (E) AND PRODUCED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FURNISHED THE OTHER DETAILS AS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE DIT (E) . THE DIT (E) EXTRACTING CERTAIN CLAUSES OF THE TRUST DEED OPINED THAT THE TRUST APART FROM HAVING CHARITABLE OBJECTS HAS ALSO GOT R ELIGIOUS OBJECTS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS THE TRUST WAS HAVING BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS OBJECTS AND WAS FORMED AFT ER 1-4-1961 IT DOES NOT QUALIFY EITHER AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE T RUST OR AS A PUBLIC RELIGIOUS TRUST. THE DIT (E) RELYING UPON C ERTAIN DECISIONS AS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE TRUST CANNO T BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY RE JECTED THE APPELLANTS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE DIT (E) HAS TOTALLY MISCONCEIVED THE FACTS AND BY MISINTERPRETING SOME OF THE OBJECT CLAUSES OF TH E TRUST DEED HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BY OB SERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIO US OBJECTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE DIT (E) WITHOUT GIVING A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROPERLY EXPLAIN THE THINGS HAS PREJ UDGED THE ISSUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DIT (E) ON TH E ONE HAND DID NOT GIVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO DISTINGUISH THE DEC ISIONS RELIED UPON BY HIM AND ON THE OTHER HAND HAS NOT AT ALL C ONSIDERED THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED, NONE OF THE OBJECT CLAUSES CAN BE CONSTR UED IN A ITA NOS.1562 OF 2012 AND 65 OF 20 13 SKANDAGIRI SRI SUBRAMANYASWAMY SANATHANA DHARMA TRUST, SECBAD. ================== 3 MANNER TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION, CAST, CREED OR COMMUNITY. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT MAJORITY OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE CHARITABLE AND IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A TOTALLY RELIGIOUS TRUST. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION FOR A TRUST IN HAVING BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS OBJECTS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION TH E LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED U PON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT-I, MADURAI VS. ARULMIGU SRI KAMATCHI AMMAN TRUS T (2012) 20 TAXMANN COM 55 (MADRAS) 2. ARULMIGU SRI KAMATCHI AMMAN TRUST VS. ITO (ITA NO.110/MDS/2011 DATED 13-6-2011 3. MALIK HASMULLAH ISLAMIC EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY VS. CIT (138 ITD 519 (LUCK) 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE DIT (E). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE DIT (E) THAT BY REFERRING TO CERTAIN CLAUSES OF THE TRUST DEED HE HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT AS THE ASSESS EE WAS HAVING BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE OBJECTS, IT CA NNOT BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONCLUSION THE DIT (E) HAS RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS . HOWEVER, AS IT APPEARS, HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN WHETHER SUCH JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS APPLY TO T HE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. FURTHER THE DIT (E) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DIT (E) HAS NOT AFFORDED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO PROPERLY EXPLAIN TH E OBJECTS OF ITA NOS.1562 OF 2012 AND 65 OF 20 13 SKANDAGIRI SRI SUBRAMANYASWAMY SANATHANA DHARMA TRUST, SECBAD. ================== 4 THE TRUST FOR REMOVING THE DOUBTS WHICH WE MIGHT BE HAVING. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25-9-2012 PASSED BY THE DIT (E) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE F OR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U /S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE DIT (E) SHALL AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT IN THE MATTER AND TAKE A DEC ISION AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION WHICH THE APPELLANT MAY RELY UPON. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.65/HYD/2013 : - 8. THIS APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIT (E) REJECTING ASSESSEES APPLICA TION SEEKING APPROVAL U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF OUR DEC ISION IN ITA NO.1562/HYD/12 HEREINABOVE THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMIT TED TO THE FILE OF THE DIT (E) FOR TAKING A DECISION IN CONSONANCE WIT H THE DECISION THAT MAY BE TAKEN WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS MATTER IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DIT (E) FOR FRESH CONSIDER ATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2013. SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 29 TH APRIL, 2013 JMR* ITA NOS.1562 OF 2012 AND 65 OF 20 13 SKANDAGIRI SRI SUBRAMANYASWAMY SANATHANA DHARMA TRUST, SECBAD. ================== 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. C/O M/S. CH. G. KRISHNA MURTHY & CO., CAS, 133/1, PRENDARGHAST ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-500 003. DIT (E), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. 3. THE DR B BENCH ITAT, HYDERABAD.