JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 7441/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79395 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ABHA KALA CHANDA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Question of law; Competent authority
• Section: 12AA; 10B; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUM BAI , BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM I.T.A. NO. 7441//MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST SHOP NO.2, RISHI TOWER II CHS, 81, MIRABI ROAD, BEHIND RAJNAGAR CHS, NEAR WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY ROAD, DAHISAR (E), MUMBAI-400 068 VS. DIT(E), 6 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012 ! ' ./PAN/GIR NO. ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) !#&' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA $%!#&' / RESPONDENT BY : MRS. ABHA KALA CHANDA ( )*&+, / DATE OF HEARING : 06.05.2014 -./&+, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.07.2014 0 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DISPUTING THE DEN IAL OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI (DIT(E) FOR SHORT) VIDE HIS O RDER U/S.12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE ACT DATED 29.11.2012. 2 ITA NO. 7441/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2011-12) JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DIT(E) 2. THE ISSUE, THEREFORE, ARISING BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO THE MAINTAINABILITY IN LAW OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATIO N TO THE APPELLANT-TRUST, CONSTITUTED VIDE TRUST DEED DATED 06.07.2009, DULY REGISTERED WITH T HE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI AS A CHARITABLE TRUST. 3.1 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS PROJECTED WI TH REFERENCE TO ITS GROUND NO. 2, READING AS UNDER: 2. THE LEARNED DIT(E), MUMBAI HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS CLAIMED, WAS REPRESENTED BEFOR E THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BY A TRUSTEE, A NON-LEGAL PERSON. AS SUCH, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY, B E ADMITTED, MAKING REFERENCE TO A COMPILATION CONTAINING THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S SOUGHT TO BE PLACED ON RECORD, ADVERTING TO THE SALARY ACCOUNT FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13, AT PAGES 83 TO 89 THEREOF. 3.2 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) WOULD, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACE RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER, STATING THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO EXHIBIT THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAD NOT BEEN ALLO WED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT THE RE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH WOULD SHOW OR EVEN INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALL OWED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE LD. DIT(E). MERE RAISING A BALD PLEA, WITHOUT A NY SUBSTANCE OR MATERIAL, WOULD BE TO NO AVAIL OR EFFECT. IT IS ONLY UPON THE TRIBUNAL IS SUING A FINDING OF FACT, BASED ON MATERIAL/S OR EVIDENCE/S, THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY O F REPRESENTATION HAD NOT BEEN ALLOWED, SO THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THAT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE SET ASIDE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AS PRAYED, SHALL FOLLOW. ON THE 3 ITA NO. 7441/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2011-12) JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DIT(E) CONTRARY, WE FIND REFERENCE TO ATTENDANCE BY THE TR USTEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS ON 04.09.2012, AND THEN AGAIN ITS REPRESENTATION VIDE LETTER DATED 09.11.2012, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF. THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 2 IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED AS WITHOUT BASIS. 4.2 WE MAY, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I.E., DECIDE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WITH REFERENCE TO ITS GROUNDS 1 & 3. THE FOLLOWING REASONS INFORM THE DECISION OF THE LD. DI T(E) IN REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S.12A. IT IS THE MAINTAINABILITY IN LAW OF THOSE REASONS, THAT WOULD, THEREFORE, FORM THE BASIS OF OUR DECISION AS TO THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWI SE IN LAW OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER: A) THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS BOTH CHARITABLE AND NON-CHARITABLE OBJECTS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THOSE NON- CHARITABLE OR COMMERCIAL OBJECTS, BUT THE VERY FACT OF THE TRUST BEING ALLOWED OR AUTHORIZED BY ITS CHARTER TO CARRY OUT T HE ACTIVITIES IN PURSUANCE TO THESE OBJECTS, THAT IS RELEVANT AND SUFFICIENT T O REGARD IT AS IS BEING CONSTITUTED FOR, AMONG OTHERS, NON-CHARITABLE OBJEC TS/PURPOSES, DISENTITLING IT FOR BEING REGARDED AS A CHARITABLE ENTITY UNDER THE ACT [REFER PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER (IO)]; B) IN-AS-MUCH AS THE INCOME OF THE TRUST COULD BE D EPLOYED FOR BOTH CHARITABLE AND NON-CHARITABLE OBJECTS AND, THUS, PU RPOSES, THERE IS NO LEGALLY BINDING OBLIGATION ON IT TO APPLY ITS INCOME ONLY F OR CHARITABLE PURPOSES [REFER PARA 3 OF THE IO]; C) THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST CANNOT BE R EGARDED AS A GENUINE IN-AS-MUCH AS: (I) IMMEDIATE RELATIVES, BEING THE SON AND DAUGHTER -IN-LAW, OF TWO TRUSTEES, STAND PAID REMUNERATION FOR SERVICES REND ERED, WHICH, DESPITE A CLAIM TO THAT EFFECT, HAVE NOT BEEN SUBST ANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE LOWER THAN THE MARKET RATE THEREFOR, SO THAT THERE HAS BEEN, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, V IOLATION OF SECTION 13(2)(C) OF THE ACT. THERE HAS BEEN IN FACT NO REPO RTING OF THE SAID PAYMENTS BY THE AUDITOR IN FORM 10B [REFER PARA 4 O F THE IO]; (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOWED REBATE/DISCOUNT IN SO ME CASES [REFER PARA 5 OF THE IO]; AND (III) A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME AND EXPEND ITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2012 REVEALS CLAIM OF DEN TAL LAB 4 ITA NO. 7441/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2011-12) JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DIT(E) EXPENSES AT RS.2,87,093/-, FOR WHICH NO DETAILS HA VE BEEN PLACED BY IT ON RECORD [REFER PARA 5 OF THE IO]. 4.3 WE SHALL TAKE UP EACH OF THE THREE OBJECTIONS R AISED BY THE LD. DIT(E), NOTED ABOVE, IN SERIATIM. THE LEGAL OBJECTION/S TO THE GR ANT OF REGISTRATION THAT PREVAILS WITH THE REVENUE WOULD THUS BE CONSIDERED FIRST, WHICH IS EV EN OTHERWISE IN ORDER IN-AS-MUCH AS IT IS ONLY IF THE ASSESSEES CASE SURVIVES THE SAME TH AT IT STANDS TO BE CONSIDERED QUA THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, TOWARD WHICH THE ASS ESSEE SEEKS ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S. NO ARGUMENT, THOUGH, WAS RAISED BY THE LD. AR QUA THESE GROUNDS, DELINEATED AT PARA 4.2 (A) & (B) (SUPRA). THE LEGAL ISSUES RAI SED BY THE LD. DIT(E) COULD IN FACT BE CONTESTED AT ANY STAGE, WHILE THE FACTS WOULD ONLY BE KNOWN TO THE TRUST, AND WHICH WE FIND TO HAVE BEEN CONVEYED TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORI TY. THE LEGAL INFERENCE ARISING OUT OF THESE FACTS IS AGAIN A QUESTION OF LAW, WHICH COULD , WHERE DISPUTED, BE ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL. AS REGARDS THE MERIT OF THE OBJECTION/S, IT SHALL B E READILY SEEN THAT THE RELEVANT GROUNDS IN FACT REPRESENT A SINGLE GROUND AS THE SE COND (AT PARA 4.2 (B) ABOVE) IS ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE FIRST (AT 4.2 (A)). THE OBJECT ION IS VALID IN PRINCIPLE, AND TOWARD WHICH WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISIONS BY THE APEX COU RT IN DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LTD. VS. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 235 (SC) AND CIT VS. PALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST [2002] 254 ITR 212 (SC). SO, HOWEVER, THE QUESTION IS IF THE ASSESSEES OBJECT/S IS NOT CHARITABLE, OR COMMERCIAL, IN NATURE. THE LD. D IT(E) HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE IMPUGNED OBJECTS, LISTED AT CLAUSE 5 OF THE TRUST DEED (PB P GS.3-22). A REFERENCE TO ITS 23 SUB- CLAUSES, HOWEVER, REVEAL THE FOLLOWING OBJECTS TO H AVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY HIM AS IMBUED WITH NON-CHARITABLE CHARACTER IN-AS-MUCH AS HIS OBJ ECTION BEARS REFERENCE TO, HOWSOEVER BRIEFLY, THEIR CONTENTS: 5) OBJECTS OF THE TRUST : 1. . 6. ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE AND S UPPORT TO HOSPITALS, DISPENSARIES, MATERNITY HOMES, SANATORIU MS, RESEARCH CENTERS, 5 ITA NO. 7441/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2011-12) JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DIT(E) LABORATORIES, MUSEUMS, STUDY CENTERS, MEDICAL COLLE GES AND SCHOOLS OR INSTITUTIONS IMPARTING MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE OR AFFORDI NG MEDICAL RELIEF. 9. THE TRUST SHALL ESTABLISH, FOUND, CONSTRUCT, OPE N, PROMOTE, TAKEOVER, EQUIP, CONDUCT, MAINTAIN, SUPPORT, SUBSIDES, GRANT AID AND MAKE DONATIONS TO HOSPITALS, DISPENSARIES, COLLEGES, ASHRAMSHALAS, SCHOOLS, PATHSHALAS, BOARDING HOUSES, LIBRARIES, READING ROOMS AND ART A ND MUSIC LIBRARIES AND SOCIETIES. 18. ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF LIBRA RIES, MUSEUM AND READING ROOMS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE TO THE TRUST. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE AS TO HOW THE SAID OBJECTS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS NON-CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THEY ARE IN FACT IN ALIGNMENT WITH AND, RAT HER, PROVIDE THE CHANNEL THROUGH WHICH IT INTENDS TO PROSECUTE OR IMPLEMENT ITS OTHER OBJE CTS, VIZ, AS UNDER: 5) OBJECTS OF THE TRUST : 1. 2. TO CONDUCT AND MAINTAIN A RESEARCH CENTER FOR RE SEARCH WORK IN DISEASES, MEDICINES AND MEDICAL RELIEF. 4. TO CREATE SOCIAL, CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL AWAKENIN G AMONGST THE GENERAL PUBLIC. 8. THE TRUST SHALL RENDER MEDICAL RELIEF AND AID T O ANY PERSON OR PERSONS OF PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND DISTRIBUTE MEDICIN ES, APPLIANCES AND OTHER REQUISITES FOR THAT PURPOSE. 10. FIRST AID IN MEDICAL AND SURGICAL EMERGENCIES. 11. TO PROMOTE, GIVE, IMPART, SPREAD AND ADVANCE ED UCATION IN ALL ITS BRANCHES INCLUDING ACADEMIC, TECHNICAL, VOCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL, AMONGST POOR, NEEDY, DESTITUTE AND ORPHAN CHILDREN. AGAIN, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR THE INFERENCE OF THE AS SESSEES OBJECTS AS BEING COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED IN THIS RESPECT ARE W ITHOUT BASIS AND, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 4.4 WE NEXT COME TO THE THREE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. DIT(E), NOTED AT PARA 4.2 (C) ABOVE, QUA THE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES. TOWAR D THIS, WE FIRST TAKE UP 6 ITA NO. 7441/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2011-12) JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DIT(E) THE ASSESSEES PLEA FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE/S. THE SAME COULD ONLY BE IN TERMS OF RULE 29 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1 963, WHICH READS AS UNDER: PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 29. THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE EITHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL, BUT IF THE TRIBUNAL REQUIRES ANY DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED OR ANY WITNESS TO BE EXAMINED OR ANY AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED TO ENABLE IT TO PASS ORDE RS OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE, OR, IF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIE S HAVE DECIDED THE CASE WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE EITHER ON POINTS SPECIFIED BY THEM OR NOT SPECIFIED BY THEM, THE TRIBUNAL, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED, MAY ALLOW SUCH DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED OR WITNESS TO BE EXAMINED OR AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED OR MAY ALLOW SUCH EVIDENCE TO BE ADDUCED. WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAD NOT BEEN EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. DIT(E), OR , RATHER, THAT THE ASSESSEE INDEED WISH TO ADDUCE SOME EVIDENCES SUBSEQUENT TO ITS LETTER D ATED 09.11.2012. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PLEA FOR BEING ALLOWED THE SAID ADMISSION ON AC COUNT OF THE TRUSTEE HAVING REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES CASE BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT MAY BE MADE TO OUR OBSERVATIONS AT PARA 4.2 ABOVE. IN FACT , APART FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DENTAL LAB EXPENSES, PLACED AT PGS.107-108 OF THE COMPILATION CONTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, BEARING PAGE NOS. 66-108, WE FIND NO COR RELATION BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND T HE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. DIT(E) TO THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRA TION. AS SUCH, IF AND TO THE EXTENT THE RELEVANT OBJECTION, BEING AT PARA 4.2 (C)(III), IS FOUND VALID, WE SHALL ADMIT THE SAME. WE SHALL TAKE UP THE OBJECTION LISTED AT PARA 4.2 ( C)(I) FIRST. THE SAME, IN-AS-MUCH AS IT PURPORTS TO VIOLATE SECTION 12A, MAY IMPACT I TS APPLICABILITY, OPERATING TO PRECLUDE THE BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE ACT TO A TRU ST, WHICH PRESUMES IT BEING REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST U/S.12A. SECTION 12AA IS AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION, NON- SATISFACTION OF WHICH SHALL, THROUGH SECTION 12A(1) (AA), OPERATE TO EXCLUDE THE CONFERMENT OF BENEFIT OF SS. 11 & 12 TO AN ENTITY SEEKING SO. AS SUCH, ALLUDING TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13, SHALL, IN OUR VIEW, BE OF NO RELEVANCE. ALL THAT IS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF 7 ITA NO. 7441/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2011-12) JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DIT(E) GRANTING (OR REFUSING TO GRANT) REGISTRATION U/S.12 AA IS THE TERMS OF THE SAID PROVISION. IF AND TO THE EXTENT SECTION 13 IS ATTRACTED IN A PART ICULAR CASE, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED, IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE (OR RELIGIOUS) PURPOSES, GIVE EFFECT THERETO AS PER THE APPLICABLE PROVISION S IN ASSESSMENT. WE MAY ALSO INCIDENTALLY MENTION THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REGIS TRATION U/S.12A IS TO BE IN FORM 10A AND NOT FORM 10B, SO THAT REFERENCE TO THE LATTER I S TO NO CONSEQUENCE. COMING TO THE OBJECTION/S STATED AT PARA 4.2 (C) (I I), THE LD. DIT(E) HAS NOT EVEN AS MUCH AS STATED THE AMOUNT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE B Y WAY OF REBATE/DISCOUNT SO MUCH FOR THE SAME BEING CONSIDERED BY HIM AS THE BASIS F OR THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES BEING NOT GENUINE OR CHARITABLE. THE SAME, RATHER, WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE ALLOWS DISCOUNT EVEN ON ITS EXTANT RATES IN DESERVING CASES. THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE ASSESSEES RATES, FOR VARIOUS MEDICAL AND CLINICAL FACILITIES/SERVICES OF FERED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BEING AT PAR WITH THE MARKET RATES IN THEIR RESPECT, ONLY WHEREU PON CAN IT BE SAID TO BE OPERATING ON A COMMERCIAL BASIS, AS ALLEGED. TRUE, IF VALID, THE A CTIVITIES COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS CHARITABLE IN-AS-MUCH AS PROFIT MOTIVE AND CHARIT Y ARE ANTITHESIS TO EACH OTHER. HOWEVER, WE OBSERVE NO BASIS FOR THE LD. DIT(E) TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES AS COMMERCIAL AND, THUS, NOT GENUINE, BARRING REGISTRA TION AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. SIMILARLY, QUA HIS REFERENCE TO DENTAL LAB EXPENSES, INCURRED AT RS.2.87 LACS (REFER PARA 4.2 (C)(III)), IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE DETAILS IN ITS RESPECT ARE NOT ON HIS RECORDS. THAT, BY ITSELF, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT IMPLY ANYTHING. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE SAID DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR AND NOT FURNI SHED, OR THAT ANY INFORMATION/EXPLANATION IN ITS RESPECT WAS REQUISITIONED, AND WHICH STOOD N OT RENDERED. THE SAME IS JUST AS BALD A STATEMENT AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WHEN IT STATES THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY STOOD NOT ALLOWED TO IT BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE C HARGE OF NON-GENUINENESS, IT MAY BE APPRECIATED, CAN ONLY COME ABOUT THROUGH AND ON THE BASIS OF HARD FACTS. WE ARE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNABLE TO CONSIDER IT AS A VALID OBJECTION BY THE LD. DIT(E) AND, CONSEQUENTLY, FIND NO NECESSITY TO ADMIT THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE/S IN ITS RESPECT, AS PRAYED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO. 7441/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2011-12) JAN KALYAN CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DIT(E) 5. IN OUR VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE FIND NO VALID B ASIS FOR THE LD. DIT(E) REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S.12A TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, ACC ORDINGLY, VACATING HIS FINDINGS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS NOT VALID IN LAW, DIRECT HIM TO G RANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE FORTHWITH, I.E., IN PURSUANCE TO ITS INSTANT APPLIC ATION. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 1/+23451+& ) 6 +&+7 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 09, 2014 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (SANJAY ARORA) / VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( 8* MUMBAI; 9 DATED : 09.07.2014 )3 ROSHANI , SR. PS !' # $%&' ('% COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( :+ ; < / THE CIT(A) 4. ( :+ / CIT - CONCERNED 5. =)>?$3+3@4 ,@4/ ( 8* / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ?5A* GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( 8* / ITAT, MUMBAI