Right to Health, Hyderabad V. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 87/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82323 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PALLAVI AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY GANDHI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 87/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 RIGHT TO HEALTH, HYDERABAD PAN AACTR1732Q DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX-(E), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI AJAY GANDHI REVENUE BY SMT. PALLAVI AGARWAL DATE OF HEARING 26-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05-09-2014 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DTED 31/12/2013 PASSED BY THE DIT(E), HYDERABAD REJECTIN G ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE STATED TO BE A C HARITABLE TRUST WAS CREATED BY A REGISTERED TRUST DEED DTD. 20/03/ 2013. ON 19/06/2013, THE TRUST FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10A BEFORE THE DIT(E) SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. AFT ER RECEIVING THE APPLICATION OF THE TRUST, DIT(E) VIDE LETTER DATED 27/09/2013, ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKING COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. F URTHER, DIT(E) ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL TRUS T DEED FOR VERIFICATION. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY TH E DIT(E), THE APPELLANT TRUST FURNISHED REQUIRED INFORMATION. DIT (E) AFTER EXAMINING 2 ITA NO.87/HYD/2014 RIGHT TO HEALTH THE TRUST DEED, NOTICED THAT PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS CREATING AWARENESS AMONGST THE GENERAL PUBLIC ABOUT RIGHT TO HEALTH AND ASSISTING THEM IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DIT(E) THAT THE AFORESAID OBJECT WOULD FALL UND ER THE AMBIT OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AS ENVISAGED U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT. DIT(E) NOTED THAT I N RESPONSE TO THE QUERY NO. 2 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED, REQUIRING THE TRUST TO FURNISH INFORMATION WITH REGARD O ITS ACTIVITIES, THE TRUST HAD MERELY STATED THAT IT HAS STARTED ITS ACTIVITIES. SUBSEQUENTLY, T RUST FURNISHED PHOTO COPY OF CERTAIN PRESS RELEASE STATED TO BE ISSUED O N 17/04/2013 IN THAT REGARD. ON GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND DOCUMENTS FILED, DIT(E) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESS EE TRUST WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM ABOUT CARRYING ON TOWAR DS ACHIEVING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. EXCEPT THE PRESS RELEASE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED HOW IT HAS CARRIED ON ACTIVITIES FOR FURT HERANCE OF OBJECTS MENTIONED IN THE TRUST DEED. DIT(E) WAS OF THE OPIN ION THAT IN ABSENCE OF NECESSARY INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO CAR RYING ON OF ACTIVITIES BY THE TRUST, THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACT IVITIES CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, HENCE, THE TRUST CANNOT BE GRATED REGI STRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. FURTHER, REFERRING TO PARA 4 OF THE TRUST DEED, DIT(E) NOTED THAT AS PER THE SAID CLAUSE, THE TRUST IS EMPOWERED TO TREAT ANY DONATION OR PART THEREOF AS CORPUS FUND OF THE TRUS T. ACCORDING TO DIT(E), THE SAID PROVISION IN THE TRUST DEED IS INC ONSISTENT WITH OR IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT, HENCE, THE TRUST CANNOT BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. DIT(E) NOTED THAT AS PER THE TRUST DEED, THE TRUSTEES ARE EMPOWERED TO CARRY ON ANY TRADE OR INDUSTRY DURING THE COURSE OF THE M ANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST AS PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE 10 OF THE TRUST DEED . DIT(E) OPINED THAT EMPOWERING TRUSTEES TO CARRY ON TRADE OR INDUS TRY OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY PROHIBITS THE TRUST FROM BEING CONSIDERED AS A FULLY CHARITABLE INSTITUTION THEREBY MAKING IT INELIGIBLE FOR REGIST RATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. BASED ON THE AFORESAID REASONINGS, DIT(E) ULTI MATELY PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER REJECTING ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF 3 ITA NO.87/HYD/2014 RIGHT TO HEALTH REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND ALSO REFUSED TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF DIT(E), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT NONE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH DIT(E) REFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION ARE VALI D GROUNDS ON WHICH REGISTRATION CAN BE REFUSED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. EX PLAINING FURTHER, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIVITIE S CANNOT BE A CRITERIA FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ONLY AFTER THREE MONTHS O F CREATION OF TRUST VIDE TRUST DEED DTD. 20/03/2013 IT HAD MADE APPLICA TION FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE DIT(E). THEREFORE, WITHIN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD, IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE UNDERT AKING ACTIVITIES IN LARGE SCALE. HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E IN FACT COMMENCED ITS ACTIVITIES BY HOLDING AWARENESS PROGR AMMES AND OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES, THOUGH, IN A SMALL SCALE. IN TH IS CONTEXT, LEARNED AR REFERRED TO THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 17/04/2013. LEA RNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SAID PRESS RELEASE, ASSESSEE HAS EXPOSED VARIOUS FRAUDS COMMITTED IN THE HEALTH SECTOR TO CR EATE AWARENESS AMONGST GENERAL PUBLIC. SO FAR AS DIT(E)S OBJECTIO N WITH REGARD TO CARRYING ON OF TRADE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY BY THE T RUSTEES, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IF THE TRADE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OR TO SUPPLEMENT ACHIEVING OF THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE TRUST CARRYING ON OF SUCH TRADE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY IS LEGALLY P ERMISSIBLE. IN THIS CONTEXT, LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN CASE OF KUSUMBA DHIRAJLAL PAREKH & LILA NA UTAMLAL PAREKH FOUNDATION IN ITA NO. 380/HYD/13 DATED 12/07/2013. SO FAR AS THE THIRD GROUND OF REJECTION RELATING TO VIOLATION OF PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, LEARNED A R SUBMITTED THAT REASONING OF THE DIT(E) IS TOTALLY MISPLACED AND IR RELEVANT AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY VIOLATION AS INFERRED BY THE DIT(E). 4 ITA NO.87/HYD/2014 RIGHT TO HEALTH 4. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED, AT TH E TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION, DIT(E) IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE ACT TO LOOK INTO THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY IT FOR FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECTS, DI T(E) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING ASSESSEES APPLICATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT CIT/ DI T(E) HAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES. UNLESS CIT/ DIT(E) IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES, HE IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE ACT TO REFUSE GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 1 2A OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 (1)(D), CARRYING ON TRADING AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY TRUSTEES ETC., LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF DIT(E). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 12AA MAKES IT CLEAR THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANTING REGISTRATION UND ER THE SAID PROVISION, DIT(E) IS REQUIRED TO LOOK INTO THE OBJECT OF THE T RUST AND GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITY. SO FAR AS THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS CONCERNED, FROM READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE HAS NO DOUBT WITH REGARD TO CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE OBJECT AS MENTIO NED IN TRUST DEED. HOWEVER, DIT(E) HAS REFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION O N THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMENCED ACTIVITIES AS PER THE OB JECTS OF THE TRUST DEED. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE TO HOLD THAT COMMENCI NG OF ACTIVITIES IS NOT THE SOLE CRITERIA TO ASCERTAIN GENUINENESS OF T HE ACTIVITIES. AS CAN BE SEEN, THE TRUST WAS CREATED IN MARCH, 2013 AND I T APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION IN JUNE13. THEREFORE, WITHIN A SPAN O F THREE/FOUR MONTHS, IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED THAT THE TRUST WILL BE UNDERT AKING ACTIVITIES IN LARGE SCALE. MOREOVER, IT APPEARS FROM THE MATERIAL S ON RECORD THAT THE TRUST IN FACT HAS UNDERTAKEN CERTAIN ACTIVITIES THOUGH IN A LIMITED SCALE, TO GENERATE/CREATE AWARENESS AMONGST THE GEN ERAL PUBLIC WITH REGARD TO FRAUD COMMITTED IN THE HEALTH SECTOR. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRUST HAS NOT CO MMENCED ITS 5 ITA NO.87/HYD/2014 RIGHT TO HEALTH ACTIVITIES. FURTHER, IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT TRUS T OR INSTITUTION IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY OF COMM ERCIAL NATURE IF SUCH COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IS INTENDED FOR ACHIEVING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE RELY UPON THE ORDER OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF KUSUMBA DHIRAJLAL PAREKH & LILA NAUTAMLA L PAREKH FOUNDATION (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER: 7. SO FAR AS THE FIRST REASON FOR REJECTING ASSESS EE'S APPLICATION IS CONCERNED, IN OUR VIEW, AT THE TIME OF GRANTING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIV ITY IS NOT A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION IF THE TRUST IS A NEW ONE. F ROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS C REATED BY TRUST DEED DATED 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2007 AND IT APPLIE D FOR REGISTRATION ON 26.2.2008. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE EXPE CTED THAT THE TRUST COULD HAVE COMMENCED ACTIVITY WITHIN SUCH A S HORT TIME. MORE OVER, IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW TH AT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY HAS ONLY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE CHARI TABLE OR NOT. AT THAT STAGE, IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO GO INTO THE AC TIVITIES OF THE TRUST WHICH CAN BE LOOKED INTO AT THE TIME OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDING. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT- 1 VS. KUTCHI DASA OSWAL MOTO PARIWAR AMBAMA TRUST ( 2013) 212 TAXMAN 435 (GUJARAT) HAS HELD AS UNDER : '5. IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABUT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST AND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES. FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE HAS THE POWER TO C ALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE TRUST AS HE THINK ARE NECESSARY. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAVE NOT COMMENCED, THE COMMISSIONER HAS AUTHORITY TO REJECT ITS APPLICATIO N FOR REGISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST FAILED TO CONVINCE HIM ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES. THAT I S WHAT UNFORTUNATELY THE COMMISSIONER DID IN THE PRESENT C ASE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SEE NO ERROR IN THE TRIBUNAL'S IMPUGNED ORDER REVERSING THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER. IT IS OFCOURSE TRUE THAT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAVE NOT COMMENCED, IF THE COMMISSIONER HAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IN HIS COMMAND , HE MAY STILL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE IS NOT SAT ISFIED ABOUT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST OR THE GENUINENES S OF ITS ACTIVITIES. WE UNDERSTAND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL ACCORDINGLY. 6 ITA NO.87/HYD/2014 RIGHT TO HEALTH 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, MERELY ON THE GROU ND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAD NOT COMMENCED, THE COMMISSIONER WAS PERSUADED TO REJECT ITS APPLICATIO N FOR REGISTRATION, WHICH IN OUR OPINION, WAS NOT APPROPR IATE AND THEREFORE, RIGHTLY INTERFERED BY THE TRIBUNAL.' 8. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HON' BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS. MEEN AKSHI AMMA ENDOWMENT TRUST (SUPRA) AND ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHARMA SAMSTAPAK SANGH VS. CIT 118 TTJ 823. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION OF THE DIT(E) TO THE EFFE CT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMENCED ITS ACTIVITIES, REGI STRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WILL NOT BE GRANTED IS NOT THE CO RRECT VIEW. SO FAR AS THE CONCLUSION OF THE DIT(E) THAT THE ASSESS EE IS HAVING MIXED OBJECTS HENCE, REGISTRATION CANNOT BE GRANTED . IN OUR VIEW, SUCH CONCLUSION IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AS THERE IS NO SUCH RESTRICTION UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE AC T WHICH COULD SUGGEST THAT A TRUST HAVING RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY IS N OT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF NEW LIFE ORGANISATION VS. CIT HAS HELD THAT AT THE STAG E OF GRANT OF CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, THE ONLY ENQUIRE WHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE MADE WOULD BE WHETHER THE SOCIETY HAS ACTUALLY MADE AN APPLICATION IN TIME AND WHETHER TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY ARE MAINTAINED IN THE MANNER AS SUGG ESTED BY THE SAID SECTION. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HE LD THAT MERELY BECAUSE A TRUST IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE, IT WILL NOT BE DISENTITLED FROM CLAIMING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTIO N 12A OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE ALLEGATION OF THE DIT(E) THAT TH E OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE NOT SPECIFIC AND THEREFORE, ARE NOT VERIF IABLE WE FIND THAT SUCH FINDING IS VAGUE AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. O N GOING THROUGH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, IT IS OBVIOUS THA T THERE ARE SPECIFIC OBJECTS WHICH ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. SI MILARLY REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION BY REFERRING TO CLAUSE 30 OF THE TRUST DEED ALSO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE VALID SINCE IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT FOR ACHIEVING ITS CHARITABLE OBJECT A TRUST OR INSTITUTION MAY ALSO CARRY ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY. MO REOVER, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE DIT(E) BEFORE REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION HAS NOT DISCLOSED HIS MIND SO FAR AS HIS DOUBTS EITHER WITH REGARD TO OBJECTS OF THE TRU ST OR THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. HAD THE D IT(E) GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ABO UT THE OBJECT AND NATURE OF ACTIVITY THE ASSESSEE COULD HA VE FURNISHED NECESSARY EXPLANATION AND TRIED TO REMOVE THE DOUBT S ENTERTAINED BY DIT(E). THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIT( E) GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE IS SUE IN A PROPER MANNER BY GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE AND HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. IN AFO RESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FEEL THAT THE DIT(E) WAS NOT JUST IFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 7 ITA NO.87/HYD/2014 RIGHT TO HEALTH 12A OF THE ACT AND AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION SEEKI NG APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERIN G THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIT(E) AND REM IT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE FOR CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE HEREINABOVE. THE DIT(E) SHALL AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHATEVER DOUBT TH E DIT(E) MIGHT BE HAVING, WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIM, PUTS REST RICTION IN GRANTING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THE DIT(E) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DECIS IONS WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY UPON IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTION, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. SO FAR AS DIT(E)S OBSERVATION WITH REGARD TO VI OLATION OF PROVISION CONTAINED U/S 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT IS CONC ERNED, ON GOING THROUGH THE SAID PROVISION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE DIT(E) IS NOT ONLY IRRELEVANT BUT IS AL SO MISPLACED. FURTHERMORE, IF THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVI SION CONTAINED U/S 11, THE SAME CAN BE LOOKED INTO BY THE AO WHILE EXA MINING ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 11 OF THE ACT IN COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING. AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/ S 12A OF THE ACT, DIT(E) CANNOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE AO AND EXA MINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 11. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE HOLD THAT DIT(E) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING ASSESSEES APPLICATI ON FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SE T ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE DIT(E) AND DIRECT HIM TO GRAN T REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12A OF THE ACT. FURTHER, WE DIRECT THE DIT(E) TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO FUL FILLMENT OF CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER CLAUSE (I) TO (V) OF SE CTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT. 8 ITA NO.87/HYD/2014 RIGHT TO HEALTH 7. BEFORE PARTING WE NEED TO CLARIFY, GRANT OF REGI STRATION U/S 12AA AUTOMATICALLY WILL NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FOR EXE MPTION U/S 11 AS ASSESSEE HAS TO FULFIL MANY MORE CONDITIONS, ONE OF THEM BEING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. FURTHER, SUB-SEC TION (3) OF SECTION 12AA EMPOWERS THE CIT/DIT(E) TO CANCEL REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED IF SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILA BLE, HE IS SATISFIED THAT EITHER ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE OR ITS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/09/2014. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) RIGHT TO HEALTH, C/O GANDHI & GANDHI, CAS., 10 02, PAIGAH PLAZA, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7, HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5)THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDER ABAD.