State Bank of Patiala, Patiala V. CIT, Patiala

ITA 984/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86183 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 984/CHD/2014 (U/S 12AA) STATE BANK OF PATIALA, VS THE CIT, RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONS, PATIALA PATIALA PAN NO.AAEAS8700N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH JAIN RESPONDENT BY : DR. AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 22.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 5.9.2014 OF CIT, PATIALA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS UNDER CHALLENGE ON FACTS & LAW, WHILE THERE IS MISAPPLICATION OF JURISDICTION U/S 12A OF THE ACT WHILE REJECTING THE PRAYER FOR GRANTING OF EXEMPTIO N. 2. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS & LAW, FOR HAVING DECLINED THE GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U/S 1 2AA OF THE ACT WHICH ACTION IS OVERLOOKING AND & IGNORING THE FACTS, MATERIAL ON RECORD, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, PROVISIONS OF ACT, ORIGINAL TRUST DEDUCTION & EVEN FURTHER IN PATENT V IOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE COMMISSIONER ASKED FOR A REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THIS APPLICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIALLY IN HIS REPORT MENTIONED THAT TRUST 2 HAS BEEN CREATED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES FOR THE RE TIRED OFFICERS OF THE BANK (SBOP) AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. HE FURTHER REPORT ED THAT TRUST WAS ONLY FOR WELFARE OF THE RETIRED BANK OFFICERS AND THEIR FAMI LY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE OBJ ECTS OF THE TRUST WAS CHARITABLE, THE CASE MERITED GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER NOTED CERTAIN SHORTCOMING IN TH E RETURN AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ASKED TO VERIFY THE ISSUES L IKE EXAMINATION OF ORIGINAL TRUST DEED, REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, GENUINENESS O F THE ACTIVITIES AND THE CLAUSES OF SECTION 2(15) UNDER WHICH ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES WAS CHARITABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICED BUT NO COMPLIANCE WA S MADE, THEREFORE, HE REPORTED THAT IT SEEMS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED IN FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. 5. THEREAFTER, A LETTER WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER GIVING DETAILS FOR WHICH QUERIES WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COPY OF THE LETTER WAS SUBMITTED IN THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER ALSO. I T WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ISSUE WAS COVERED BY THE LAST LIMB OF SECTION 2(15) I.E. OTHER OBJECTS OF PUBLIC UTILITY ON ACCOUNT OF FACILITIES OF LIBRARY FOR GE NERAL PUBLIC AND INDOOR GAMES TO SENIOR CITIZENS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER ISSUED NOTICE FOR HEARING IN RESPONSE TO WHICH LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FIL ED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS A REGISTERED SO CIETY WHICH QUALIFIED AS INSTITUTION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT BENEFICIA L TO THE PUBLIC OR A SECTION OF PUBLIC. THE SOCIETY WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OFFI CERS OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR RELIGION, GENDER, CASTE, CREE D SIX OR SECT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- A) CIT VS ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 130 ITR 184 B) CIT V FICCI 130 ITR 186 C) CIT V SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURER ASSOCIA TES 121 ITR 1 D) CIT V BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA 130 ITR 186. 3 SOME MORE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND TRI BUNALS WERE ALSO RELIED. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND RE FERRED TO THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) AND THEN DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE FOLLOWING PARAS :- THE LIMB OF SEC. 2(15) UNDER WHICH THE APPLICANT H AS CLAIMED TO FALL IS 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY'. THE UTILITY SHOULD BE, THEREFORE, OF THE 'GENERAL P UBLIC'. THE APPLICANT HAS, IN CONTEXT OF THE QUERIES RAISED BEFORE IT BY THIS OFFICE, RELIED ON THE NUMBER OF JUDGEM ENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER COURTS AND TRIBUNAL S FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN IF THE BENEFIT OF CHARITY WAS LIMITED TO A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC, THE OBJECTS WOULD NOT CEAS E TO BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. HOWEVER, MOST OF THE DECISIO NS RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT ARE ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE. IN THE CASE OF ADD. CIT VS. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFAC TURERS ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD TH AT IT WAS THE DOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ASSOCIATION WHICH HAD TO BE SEEN TO DECIDE WHETHER THE OBJECTS WILL CHARITABLE OR NOT. IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE PRIMARY OR THE DOMINANT PURPOSES OF THE TRUST OR IN STITUTION IS CHARITABLE ANOTHER OBJECT WHICH BY ITSELF MAY NOT B E CHARITABLE BUT WHICH IS MERELY ANCILLARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY OR DOMINANT PURPOSES MAY NOT PREVENT THE TRUST OR INST ITUTION FROM BEING A VALID CHARITY. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DOMIN ANT OR PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PROMOTE COMMERCE AND TRADE IN ART, SILK YARN, COTTON YARN, ETC. AND THAT THE OTHE R OBJECTS WILL MERELY INCIDENTAL. THIS JUDGEMENT WAS, THEREFORE, O N A DIFFERENT ISSUE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARA SHTRA (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ENSURE QUALITY SERVICE OF COMPE TENT LAWYERS TO THE LITIGATING PUBLIC, TO SPREAD LEGAL LITERACY, LA W REFORMS ETC. AND THE BENEFIT ACCRUING TO LAWYER MEMBER BEING ONLY IN CIDENTAL, THE DOMINANT PURPOSE WAS CLEARLY THE ADVANCEMENT OF OBJ ECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN MEANING OF SEC.2(15). THE HON'BLE APEX COURT NOTED THAT AMONGST VARIOUS OBLIGATORY FU NCTIONS WHICH WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE ONE CLAUSE PROVIDED FOR T HE SAFEGUARD OF 4 THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND INTEREST OF THE ADVOCATE S ON ITS OWN AND IT WAS DIFFICULT TO REGARD IT AS A PRIMARY OR DOMIN ANT FUNCTION OR PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE BODY WAS CONSTITUTED. EVEN TH IS FUNCTION WAS HELD TO ENSURE MAINTENANCE OF HIGH STANDARDS OF THE BAR WHICH WERE NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE AND THE DU TIES OF THE SOCIETY. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE HON'BLE APEX COURT H AD ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF SEC.2(15) TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE PURP OSE OF THE BAR COUNCIL WAS PRIMARILY TO HELP THE SOCIETY. TO THE S AME EFFECT ARE THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANDHR A CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 55 ITR 722, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIE S OF THE SOCIETY IN PROMOTING TRADE, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES HELPED NOT ONLY THE INTERESTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE PU BLIC AT LARGE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION ''OBJECT OF GENERAL PU BLIC UTILITY' 1 WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO OBJECTS BENEFICIAL TO THE WHO LE OF MANKIND. IT WAS HELD THAT AN OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC IS AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IT WAS SUFFICIENT IF THE INTENTION WAS TO BENEFIT THE SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTING UISHED FROM SPECIFIED INDIVIDUALS. THIS DECISION ALSO DOES NOT ASSIST THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAVE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC OR A SECTION OF THE P UBLIC, IN CONTRAST TO A GROUP OF DEFINED MEMBERS. 8. IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT, THE BENEFICIARIES ARE CLEAR AND DEFINED INDIVIDUALS AND MEMBERS AS THOSE ADMITTED T O THE MEMBERSHIP AND TO ITS BENEFITS AS PER THE AIMS AND OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS . TRILOK TIRATH VIDYAVATI CHUTTANI IS ON DIFFERENT ISSUE I.E. DENIA L OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 EVEN THOUGH THE CHARITABLE CHARACTER HAD BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE CIT WHILE GRANTING REGISTRATION, THOUGH THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (SUPRA) ON ISSUE OF DOMINANT OBJECT WAS DI SCUSSED IN THE JUDGEMENT. IN THE CIRCULAR NO.395 DATED 24.09.1 984 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE PROMOTION OF SP ORTS AND COMMERCE WAS TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE SINCE THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO THE PUB LIC OR SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL O R GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UT ILITY. THIS 5 DECISION FOLLOWS THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (SUP RA). 9. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE A PPLICANT ASSOCIATION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE AP PLICANT ASSOCIATION ARE NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC O R FOR A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC, BUT ARE OF THE BENEFIT OF A GROUP OF IN DIVIDUALS. THIS IS THE DOMINANT OBJECT OF THE APPLICANT ASSOCIATION. I T IS NOT FOR THE UTILITY OF THE 'GENERAL PUBLIC', WHICH IS THE REQUI REMENT U/S 2(15) OF THE-ACT. THOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS CLAIMED TO HA VE CARRIED OUT ACTIVITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, T HESE ARE ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES, AND NOT THE DOMINANT ONES. EVEN OTHERW ISE, AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION WHAT IS TO BE EXAMINED IS PRIMARILY THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE APPLICANT INSTITUTION (REFER CIT VS. SURYA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST) 203 TAXMANN 53 (P &H). I, THEREFORE, REFUSE THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT. 7. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. HE REFERRED TO PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH GIVES THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. HE ALSO REFERRED TO PA GE 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN TO THE COMMISSIONER AND POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAD MADE DONATION TO THE PRIME MINISTER REL IEF FUND, HELPING POOR WIDOWS AND HAS OPENED A LIBRARY FRO THE PUBLIC WHIC H CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN ACHIEVING THE OBJECT OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- CIT V TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, 83 ITR 247 (P&H) ADDL. CIT V SURAT ART SILK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIO N 121 ITR 1 ((SC) CIT V BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA 130 ITR 28 (SC) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX V BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE 259 ITR 280 (SC) 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SOCIETY WAS MAINLY INCORPORATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF OFFICERS OF STATE BANK OF PATIAL A AND THEIR FAMILIES. THE MEMBERSHIP WAS RESTRICTED TO THE OFFICERS ONLY, THE REFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS MEANT FOR GENERAL PUBLIC AND, THEREFORE, DEC ISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. HE HOWEVER, REFERRED TO THE CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE HAS STARTED A LIBRARY AND WAS HELPING WIDO WS ETC, IS ALSO NOT TENABLE 6 BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A PART OF THE OBJECT RELEVANT F OR GRANTING REGISTRATION. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS EXAMINATION OF THE OBJECTS OF A PART ICULAR SOCIETY OR A TRUST AND IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PU NJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SURYA EDUCATIONAL & CHARTABLE TRU ST 355 ITR 280. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. BY NOW IT IS TRITE LAW THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION THE COMMI SSIONER IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE ONLY OBJECTS OF A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION. THE HON' BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT RECENTLY CONFIRMED THIS POSITION IN THE CASE OF CIT V SURYA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT IS VERY CLEARLY HELD THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION THE COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE ONLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECT AND NOT APPLICATION OF IN COME. THE SOCIETY HAS FOLLOWING OBJECTS:- A) TO BRING TOGETHER THE RETIRED OFFICERS OF THE BA NK AND TO FOSTER THE FEELINGS OF BROTHERHOOD, FRIENDSHIP AND FELLOWS HIP. B) TO KEEP UP AND CONTINUE THE RELATION WITH THE BA NK AND PREVIOUS EMPLOYER AND TO SEEK ALL HELP, SUCCOUR AND PATRONAG E FROM THE BANK FOR ALL THE RETIRED OFFICERS AND BENEFICIARIES OF FAMILY PENSION GENERALLY OR FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL OFFICER WHO MAY BE IN NEED THEREOF, OTHER THAN BY WAY OF LITIGATION. C) TO STRIVE FOR THE FINANCIAL BETTERMENT OF THE RE TIRED OFFICERS / FAMILY PENSION BENEFICIARIES SUCH AS PENSION, MEDIC AL AID, CONCESSIONS OF ANY NATURE WHICH THE ASSOCIATION CON SIDERS FIT AND PROPER, RATE OF INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AND ALL RETRIA L BENEFITS AS AVAILABLE TO BANK/OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR / GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. D) TO RAISE AND ACQUIRE SUCH MONEY OR MONEYS, BY SU BSCRIPTIONS, LEVIES, DONATIONS FROM MEMBER/OTHER PERSONS AND / O R AGENCIES AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE ASSOCIATION AND AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION 7 E) TO CO-OPERATE, COORDINATE AND AFFILIATE WITH ORG ANIZATIONS PARTICULARLY THOSE HAVING SIMILAR OBJECTS IN INDIA OR OUTSIDE. F) TO ACQUIRE, DISPOSE OF AND LEASE OUT ANY MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR FURTHERANCE OF OBJE CTS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 10. THE CAREFUL READING OF THE SAME WOULD SHOW THAT ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN FORMED MAINLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF RETIRED OFFICERS. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN FORMED FOR ACHIEVING ANY OBJEC TS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE MAIN OBJECT IS TO FOSTER THE FEELINGS OF BROTHE RHOOD AND TO CONTINUE RELATION WITH THE BANK, TO STRIVE FOR FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF R ETIRED OFFICERS, PENSIONERS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CALLED THE OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS HEAVILY RELIED ON THE TWO C ASES. THE FIRST CASE RELIED IS ADDL, CIT VS SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE ASSOCIATION WAS OF ART SILK MANUFACTURER AND H AD THE FOLLOWING OBJECTS AS NOTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AT 121 ITR AT PA GE 7:- (A) TO PROMOTE COMMERCE AND TRADE IN ART SILK YARN , RAW SILK, COTTON YARN, ART SILK CLOTH, SILK CLOTH AND COTTON CLOTH. (B) TO CARRY ON ALL AND ANY OF THE BUSINESS OF ART SILK YARN, RAW SILK, COTTON YARN AS WELL AS ART SILK CLOTH, SILK C LOTH AND COTTON CLOTH BELONGING TO AND ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS. (C) TO OBTAIN IMPORT LICENCES FOR IMPORT OF ART SIL K YARN, RAW SILK, COTTON YARN AND OTHER RAW MATERIALS AS WELL AS ACCE SSORIES REQUIRED BY THE MEMBERS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ART SILK, SIL K AND COTTON FABRICS. (D) TO OBTAIN EXPORT LICENCES AND EXPORT CLOTH MANU FACTURED BY THE MEMBERS. (E) TO BUY AND SELL AND DEAL IN ALL KINDS OF CLOTH AND OTHER GOODS 8 AND FABRICS BELONGING TO AND ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBE RS ....... (N) TO DO ALL OTHER LAWFUL THINGS AS ARE INCIDENTAL OR CONDUCIVE TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE ABOVE OBJECTS. 12. THE READING OF THE ABOVE OBJECTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT MAIN OBJECT WAS PROMOTION OF COMMERCE AND TRADE IN ART, SILK AND YA RN, THEREFORE, ANYBODY WHO WAS DEALING WITH SILK, YARN OR RAW SILK OR COTTON YARN COULD BECOME MEMBER OF THIS ASSOCIATION AND THIS WAS HELD TO BE OBJECTS T O BE OF GENERAL UTILITY. IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS FORMED TO PROM OTE COMMERCE AND TRADE IN ART, SILK, YARN, RAW SILK, COTTON YARN ETC I.E. FOR GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF A PARTICULAR TRADE. WHEREAS IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSOCIATION WAS FLOATED BY THE SBOP OFFICERS AND THE MEMBERSHIP WAS OPENED ONL Y FOR OFFICERS FORM THE SBOP AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE CALLED FOR GENERAL PU BLIC UTILITY. 13. AGAIN HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 83 ITR 247 (P&H) (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS NOT RESTRICT ED TO THE OBJECTS BENEFICIAL TO THE WHOLE MANKIND. IT IS SEEN IF THE INTENTION IS TO BENEFIT A SECTION OF A PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SPECIFIED INDIVIDUAL. EV EN IF THIS TEST IS APPLIED, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THAT ASSOCIATION IS NOT MEANT FOR T HE BENEFIT OF A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC BUT IT IS MEANT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SPECI FIC INDIVIDUALS I.E FOR THE OFFICERS OF THE SBOP. IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT AS P ER CLAUSE (5) OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH READS AS UNDER;- 5. MEMBERSHIP MEMBERSHIP SHALL BE OPEN TO ALL THE RETIRED OFFICER S OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA. A MEMBER SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO NOMINATE, SUPPORT THE NOMINATION OR AGREE TO SUCH A NOMINATIO N OR CAUSE HIMSELF / HERSELF TO BE NOMINATED UNLESS HE / SHE HAS PAID MEMBERSHIP /ANNUAL FUND / LEVY ETC. UP-TO-DATE . THERE SHALL BE TWO TYPES OF MEMBERSHIP I.E. LIFE MEMBERSH IP AND HONORARY MEMBERSHIP. 9 READING OF THE ABOVE WOULD SHOW THAT ASSOCIATION IS NOT OPEN FOR MEMBERSHIP FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SBOP BUT ONLY OF RETIR ED OFFICERS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY ASSOCIATION IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PARTICULAR SET OF SPECIFIED INDIVIDUALS AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERAL PUB LIC UTILITY. OTHER CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE O N THE SAME PATTERN AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME BECA USE THEY ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO REFER RED TO PAGE 30 TO POINT OUT THAT ASSOCIATION HAS GIVEN CERTAIN DONATION TO THE PRIME MINISTER RELIEF FUND AND HELP TO THE WIDOWS AND STARTED A LIBRARY BUT AS ALREADY POINTED OUT BY US THAT IT IS NOT THE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE GOT BE EXA MINED AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION BUT IT IS OBJECTS WHICH HAVE TO BE EXA MINED AND THE OBJECTS AND AS POINTED OUT EARLIER THAT ASSOCIATION WAS FORMED ONL Y FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OFFICERS. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEES ASSOCIATION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FORMED FOR ANY GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(15). 15. WE ARE SURPRISED THAT WHY ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR THIS REGISTRATION. IF IT IS GOING TO BE RUN FROM THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE MEM BER OFFICERS THEN ASSESSEE CAN HAVE EASILY OBTAINED THE EXEMPTION ON THE BASIS OF MUTUALITY. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION WE FIND NOTHI NG WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.02.2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 6 TH FEBRUARY,2015 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR 10