Sadguru Narendra MaharajSansthan, Ratnagiri V. C.I.T.-II, Kolhapur

ITA 994/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84994 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MODI
• Assessee Lawyers: ARIVIND V SHONDE
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12A; 12AA; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 994 /PN/20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, AT A ND POST - NANIJ, TALUKA - RATNAGIRI, DISTT. - RATNAGIRI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I I, KOLHAPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAATS5417R APPELLANT BY: SHRI ARIVIND V. SHONDE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.K. MODI DATE OF HEARING : 1 1 - 0 7 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 - 0 9 - 2014 ORDER P ER R.S. PADVEKAR , JM : - THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT - II, KOLHAPUR DATED 21 - 03 - 2012 PASSED U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE GRANTED U/S. 12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 15 - 09 - 1999. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN WITHDRAWING THE REGISTRATION GRANT ED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 15/09/1999. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT TO W ITHDRAW THE REGISTRATION WERE NOT SATISFIED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE TRUST DEEDS AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE VERIFIED BY THE VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX INCLUDING THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX WHO HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ON THEIR SATISFACTION THE TRUST WAS REGI STERED U/S 12A AND RECOGNITION / RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G WAS GRANTED. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE.SHE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A LL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND WERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF GENERAL PUBLIC AND ALL FACILITIES OF THE TRUST WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO GENERAL PUBLIC WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN COMMUNITY, CASTE, CR EED AND RELIGION. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN TREATING VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS TOWARDS VARIOUS FUNDS AS INCOME OF THE TRUST. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT FURTHER ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE TRUST EXPENDED / APPLIED FELL SHORT OF 85% OF ITS TOTAL INCOME. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THE TRUST WAS PARTLY A RELIGIOUS TRUST THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO PARTLY CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN USURPING THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ABOVE CONCISE GROUNDS IN PLACE OF ORIGINAL MULTIPLE GROUNDS HENCE, THE CONCISE GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED FOR DECIDING THE ISSUES. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UND ER. THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST WHICH WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION 3 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI U/S. 12A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX KOLHAPUR ON 15 - 09 - 1999. THE LD. CIT - II, KOLHAPUR (IN SHORT THE COMMISSIONER) INVOKING HER POWERS U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE ACT PROCEEDED TO CANCEL REGISTRATION AS THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE PRIMA - FACIE AGAINST THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, BEING PRE DO MINANTLY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS PRIMA - FACIE MIS - STATED ITS INCOME AND ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE WHICH WAS BEING INCURRED PREDOMINATELY FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE, AS WELL AS INCURRED FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT OF TRUSTEES. THE LD. COMMISSIONER ALSO REFERRED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT CONDUCTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONGREGATED WITH THE FAMILY OF THE CHIEF TRUSTEES, I.E. SHRI NARENDRA BABURAO SURVE, AND DUE TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE TRUS T DEED , THE PUBLIC AT LARGE WAS BARRED HAVING ANY ACCESS TO THE PROPERTIES/FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND SUBSEQUENT UTILIZATION THEREOF. 3. THE ASSESSEE RESISTED THE ACTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER BY TAKING THE CONTENTION THAT THE DONATIONS WERE RECEI VED BY IT WERE WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS AND THEREFORE, FORM PART OF CORPUS AND NOT INCLUDIBLE IN INCOME OF THE TRUST. IN RESPECT OF THE CHARGE OF THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES , THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE CONTENTION THAT IT HA S NOT CONSTRUCTED ANY TEMP LE, BUT THE SAME WAS A DONATION - IN - KIND (VASTURUP DENAGI) FR OM THE DEVOTEES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OF TEMPLE WAS FOR ADVANCEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, AND WAS THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE POOJA, ABHISHEK AND OTHER RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES ARE BEING CARRIED OUT BY ANOTHER TRUST KNOWN AS SANJEEVAN TRUST , AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AS ALLEGED IN PERFORMING THE RELIGIOUS RITUALS. THE ASSESSEE ALS O STATED THAT THE TRUST HAS CONSTRUCTED 4 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI MEDITATION CENTERS AND HE HAS A LSO CONSTRUCTED CANTEEN AND THE SAID FACILITY IS UTILIZED BY THE DEVOTEES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. AS REGARDS TO THE GIFT SCHEME OF GIVING SILVER COIN S TO THE FOLLOWERS /DEVOTEES WHO COLL ECT DONATIONS, THE ASSESSEE TRUST STATED THAT IT IS MERELY FELICITATION AND APPRECIATION OF THE EFFORTS OF THOSE DEVOTEES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE TRUST HAS NO OBJECTIVE OF EARNING PROFIT THROUGH TOURISM, AND THE BEAUTIFICATION OF THE PREMISES IS ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE CLEAN, PLEASANT, AND HYGIENIC ATMOSPHERE. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 CRORES ON SAMADHI MANDIR WAS INCURRED AS PER THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWERS AND THAT THE SAMADHI MANDIR CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED B EFORE DEATH OF A PERSON. THE LD. COMMISSIONER ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF WHEAT , CLOSURE OF FREE FOOD DISTRIBUTION CAMP, RETENTION PREMISES CONVERSION OF THE AMBULANCE TO ORDINARY VEHICLE ETC. AFTER REJECTING THE EXPLANATION S O F THE ASSESSEE ON ALL RELATED QUERIES , LD. COMMISSIONER PASSED THE ORDER AND CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST INVOKING HER POWERS U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE ACT. THE OBSERVATIONS, REASONS AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER ARE AS UNDER: 6. I H AVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ONE OF THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950, AND AS A 'CHARITABLE TRUST', UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT, 1961, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR, ON TWO OCCASIONS, ON BEING SATISFIED AFTER DUE VERIFICATION, HENCE THERE IS NO NEED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED, AT THIS STAGE. 7. IN THIS RESPECT, I FIND IT NECESSARY TO CL ARIFY AT THE OUTSET THAT MERE REGISTRATION WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950, AS A 'CHARITABLE TRUST' DOES NOT QUALIFY THE ASSESSEE AS 'CHARITABLE', WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS, AND ALWAYS HAD, INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 5 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI 12AA(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, TO VERIFY / RE - VERIFY AND CONFIRM THE CORRECTNESS OF THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT GRANTED EARLIER, AT ANY TIME IN SUBS EQUENT FUTURE. THIS FACT BECOMES MORE PROMINENT ON CONSIDERING THE RECENT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 80G, AND THE EXPLANATORY NOTE TO THE AMENDMENT. OF COURSE, THERE HAS TO BE SOME CONCRETE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE COMMISSIONER FOR CONDUCTING SUCH A REVIE W, ON ANY SUBSEQUENT DATE, EVEN IN THE VERY NEXT MONTH OF GRANTING OF REGISTRATION. IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IT WAS NOTICED THAT IT HAD BEEN RECEIVING HUGE AMOUNT OF SUMS RUNNING IN CRORES OF RUPEES EVERY YEAR, OVER THE DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS, AND HAS BEE N CLAIMING IT AS PART OF CORPUS DONATIONS', WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THEREFORE, IT HAD BECOME ESSENTIAL TO ASCERTAIN THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11(1)(D), AS WELL AS SEC. 115BBC, OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. MOREOVER, IT WAS ALSO N OTICED THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED BY THE TRUST INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPLES , AUDITORIUM, STADIUM, RUNNING OF LODGING & RESTAURANT, AND EXPENDITURE ON RELIGIOUS DISCOURSES. THEREFORE, IT HAD BECOME ESSENTIAL TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER THE TRUST WAS HIT B Y PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(1), OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO SEC. 13(L)(C) OF THE ACT. IT HAD ALSO BECOME NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON RELIGIOUS PURPOSE DOES NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS OF 5 PERCENT, AS IS PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 80G(5B) OF THE ACT. 8. THUS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE, THAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, THE REVIEW OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, IS NOT ARBITRARY, BUT WITH SUFFICIENT VALID REASONS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT, IT WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION ON TWO OCCASIONS BY THE COMMISSIONER, AND THAT IT IS REGISTERED WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER AS 'CHARITABLE', IS NOT AT ALL TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR POSITION OF FACTS BROUGHT OUT HERE - IN - ABOVE, AND ALSO UNAMBIGUOUS, AND SUFFIC IENTLY CLEAR POSITION OF LAW. HENCE, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION TO THIS EXTENT. 9. FURTHER, AS BROUGHT OUT EARLIER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INCURRING HUGE EXPENDITURE FOR ACTIVITIES, WHICH PRIMA - FACIE APPEARS TO BE RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. AS REGARDS TO THE OBSERVATION REGARDING EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPLES, AUDITORIUM, & STADIUM, AND EXPENDITURE ON RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14 - 02 - 2012, HAS SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI . TO CARRY OUT THE OBJECT OF PREACHING AND PROPAGATING THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEDITATION AS A MEANS OF ATTAINMENT OF PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND SPIRITUAL HEALTH, TREATING NOTIONS OF BLIND FAITH, CURING ADDICTS AND THE LIKE. TOWARDS THIS END, THE SPIRITUAL ATMOSPHERE I N THE VICINITY OF THE MEDITATION CENTRE NEEDS TO BE PURE. SPIRITUALITY AND IMPROVEMENT IN THOUGHTS PERTAINING TO SOCIAL VALUES, MORAL VALUES, ETHICS AND UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF SOUL REQUIRES PURITY IN THOUGHTS AND IS BEST ACHIEVED AFTER OFFERING PRAYERS TO GOD. TEMPLES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AS A MEANS TO ACHIEVING THIS END AND ARE NOT AN END IN ITSELF.. AND THAT, '........THE DISCOURSES AND LECTURES ARE CONDUCTED IN THE STADIUM AND AUDITORIUM AND THEREFORE THEY ARE PURELY ON THE OBJE CTS OF THE TRUST AND ARE OF A CHARITABLE NATURE.....' 10. WHILE EXPLAINING THE RENTING OUT OF THE TRUST VEHICLES, SHOPS, AND BUILDINGS OF THE TRUST, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT, . THE PEOPLE WHO VISIT THE PREMISES OF THE TRUST UNDERTAKE MEDITATION, DISCUS S THE MATTERS RELATING TO SPIRITUAL ASPECTS, BLIND FAITH, ETC., AND IN THE PROCESS VISIT THE TEMPLES OF GANESHA, SHRI RAM WITHIN THE PREMISES OF THE TRUST AND MEDITATE IN THE MEDITATION CENTRE.........'. AND THAT, '........THE INTENTION OF THE TRUST IN CON STRUCTING AND LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY IS ONLY TO FULFILL THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST, VIZ. EDUCATION OF MASSES, MEDITATION, CURING BLIND FAITH SPIRITUAL PROGRESS, PROGRESS OF MORAL AND SOCIAL VALUES, ACHIEVING PURITY OF THOUGHTS AND SOUL, AND THE LIKE..... .' AND ALSO THAT, .......THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF CONSTRUCTION OF MEDITATION CENTRE IS TO CREATE AS SOUND AND HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE WITH GOOD MORAL VALUES .....' WHILE EXPLAINING THE MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION AT A FUNCTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT, '....... .THE DISCOURSES AND LECTURES ARE CONDUCTED IN THE STADIUM AND AUDITORIUM AND THEREFORE THEY ARE PURELY ON THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND ARE OF A CHARITABLE NATURE.....' 7 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI 11. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSEES INTENTION EXPENDITURE OF CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPLE, MEDITATION CENTRE, STADIUM, AUDITORIUM, AND ALSO ON OTHER ACTIVITIES LIKE CONDUCTING DISCOURSE, ETC., IN NUT - SHELL IS ESSENTIALLY U FORSPJRITU.AL AND MORAL UP - LIFTMENT OF PEOPLE'. THEREFORE, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO LOOK AS TO WHETHER SUCH AN OBJECTIVE QUALIFIES TO BE 'CHARITABLE' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(15) OF THE ACT. IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE TERM SPIRITUAL, OR MORAL, IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, ONE HAS TO LOOK FOR THE MEANING OF THESE T ERMS, AS IS COMMONLY USED. IT IS SEEN THAT VARIOUS DICTIONARIES DEFINE THE TERM 'SPIRITUAL' AS UNDER: SPIRITUAL (ADJ.) : 1. OF, RELATING TO, CONSISTING OF, OR HAVING THE NATURE OF SPIRIT; NOT TANGIBLE OR MATERIAL.. 2. OF, CONCERNED WITH, OR AFFECTING THE S OUL 3. OF, FROM, OR RELATING TO GOD; DEIFIC. 4. OF OR BELONGING TO A CHURCH OR RELIGION; SACRED. 5. RELATING TO OR HAVING THE NATURE OF SPIRITS OR A SPIRIT; SUPERNATURAL AND THE TERM 'MORAL' IS DEFINED AS: MORAL (ADJ.) : 1. CONCERNED WITH OR RELATING TO HUM AN BEHAVIOR, ESP THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD OR RIGHT AND WRONG BEHAVIOR MORAL SENSE. 2. ADHERING TO CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 3. BASED ON A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG ACCORDING TO CONSCIENCE MORAL COURAGE MORAL LAW 4. HAVING PSYC HOLOGICAL RATHER THAN TANGIBLE EFFECTS MORAL SUPPORT 12. THUS, FROM ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT, BY THE VERY NATURE 'SPIRITUAL' OR 'MORAL' IS NOT AT ALL A TANGIBLE OR MATERIAL ENTITY BUT IS HAVING A PSYCHOLOGICAL, BEHAVIORAL, OR CONSIENCENAL EFFECT, WHICH IS AN ABSTRACT PHENOMENON, RATHER THAN HAVING TANGIBLE EFFECTS. THEREFORE, BOTH THE ABOVE TERMS ARE CLOSER TO BEING RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE TERM 'RELIGIOUS' HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 'RELIGIOUS PURPOSES' ARE NECESS ARILY ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGION. *RELIGIOUS PURPOSE' NOT ONLY INCLUDES THE ADVANCEMENT, SUPPORT OR PROPAGATION OF RELIGION OR ITS TENETS, BUT ALSO INCLUDE THE SPIRITUAL, AS WELL AS MORAL, ADVANCEMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL. THEREFORE, 8 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION TH AT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON' THIS ACCOUNT IS NON - RELIGIOUS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED, HENCE REJECTED. 13. FURTHER, IN ITS SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE WORK RELATED TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO 'SANJEEVAN TRUST', TO ENSURE THA T IT MANAGES ALL THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES OUT OF ITS OWN RESOURCES. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT ON 19 - 03 - 2012, (I) AN COPY OF F TRUST DEED/MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION (II) COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE TRUSTEES (III) COPIES OF AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, AND (IV) BRIEF NOTE ON THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE SAID TRUST. HOWEVER, TILL DATE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE SAME. HOWEVER, WHATEVER MAY BE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SAID TRUST, IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF SER VICES RENDERED BY THAT TRUST, WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY 'RELIGIOUS'' IN NATURE. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE DOES THESE ACTIVITIES HIMSELF, OR GET IT DONE THROUGH SOMEBODY ELSE, IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY RELIGIOUS IN N ATURE. HENCE, THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES IS PRESENT. 14. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO PROJECT THAT THE SO - CALLED 'SPIRITUAL AND MORAL UPLIFTMENF IS A SORT OF EDUCATION, AND IS THEREFORE, A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY . AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS RELEVANT TO BE SEEN AS TO WHAT MEANING HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE WORD 'EDUCATION' WHICH OCCURS IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE WORD 'EDUCATION' MUST BE CONFINED TO THE MEANING ASSIGNED THERETO AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT . THE WORD 'EDUCATION' HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE IT ACT. HOWEVER, THE MEANING OF WORD ' EDUCATION' EXPOUNDED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST ( 1975 ) 101 ITR 234 ( SC ), RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 2(1 5) OF THE ACT IS RELEVANT HERE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT - ' THE SENSE IN WHICH WORD ' EDUCATION' HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOUNG IN PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. IT ALSO CONNOTE S THE WHOLE COURSE OF SCHOLASTIC INSTRUCTION WHICH A PERSON HAS RECEIVED..... WHAT EDUCATION CONNOTES IN THAT CLAUSE IS THE PROCESS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPING THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING' 15. IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT THE EXISTENCE OF CONCEPT OF 'NORMAL SCHOOLING' HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE CASE 9 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT CLAIMS THAT IT IS EDUCATING THE MASSES BY IMPARTING DISCOURSE, ETC. IN 'SPIRITUAL AND MORAL VALUES'. I N LIGHT OF THE AFORE - SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, SUCH ACTIVITY DOES NOT QUALIFY TO BE 'EDUCATIONAL', WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 16. IT WILL ALSO NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR THE AP PROVAL U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH GRANT OF EXEMPTION AS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, HOSPITALS ETC. THE APPLICATION WAS MADE BEFORE THE HON. CHIEF CIT - II, PUNE, VIDE APPLICATION DATED 10 - 01 - 2007. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN BY T HE ASSESSEE ON 19 - 06 - 2009. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM. OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPLES, AUDITORIUM, STADIUM, MEDITATION CENTRE, AND IMPARTING DISCOURSES, ETC., IS ESSENTIALLY OF 'RELIGIO US' IN NATURE, AND DO NOT QUALIFY AS BEING 'CHARITABLE', OR EVEN 'EDUCATIONAL', WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(15) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 IS NOT AVAILABLE TO PARTLY CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, AS IS HELD BY VA RIOUS COURTS. THEY ARE AVAILABLE EITHER TO A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION OR A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. MIXED ORGANIZATIONS HAVING BOTH CHARITABLE AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS PURPOSES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTIONS. 18. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE,, IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE RECORDS OF THE LAST CONSECUTIVE THREE YEARS THAT THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE IS ON RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, AS UNDER : SR. NO. A.Y. GROSS RECEIPT EXPENDITURE ON ADDITION TO BUILDING (I.E. TEMPLES, AUDITORIUM, STADIUM, MEDITATION CENTRE, ETC. EXPENDITURE ON OTHER ACTIVITIES OF NATURE DISCUSSED ABOVE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF THE NATURE DISCUSSED ABOVE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE TO GROSS INCOME 1 2011 - 12 37622001 40410567 2871283 43281855 115.04 2 2010 - 11 54098196 44501504 7706380 52207884 96.50 3 2009 - 10 85037349 46596773 7503013 54099786 63.61 19. FROM ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INCURRING MAJOR PORTION OF ITS EXPENDITURE ON THE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO 'SPIRITUAL AND MORAL UP - LIFTMEN T, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT RELIGIOUS. IT IS ALREADY HELD IN 10 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS THAT THE SAID ACTIVITY DOES NOT QUALIFY TO BE 'CHARITABLE' OR 'EDUCATIONAL' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(15) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE INCOME EXPENDED ON THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(15) OF THE ACT, FALL SHORT TO 85% OF ITS TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED ON THIS COUNT ALSO. 20. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING RECEIPT OF HUGE AMOUNTS OF DONATIONS, CLAIMED TO BE TOWARDS 'CORPUS OF THE TRUST'. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RELEVANT RECORDS. IN. THIS REGARDS IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUE, WAS EXAMINED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICERS FOR THE AYS 2007 - 08, AND 2008 - 09, IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMI NED IN DETAIL VIDE THE ORDERS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 30 - 12 - 2011, AND ORDER U/S 143(3) DT. 31 - 12 - 2010, FOR THE ABOVE AYS, RESPECTIVELY. THROUGH THESE ORDERS, BOTH THE AOS HAVE COME TO THE CONCL USIONS THAT THE FUNDS AGAINST WH ICH THE DONATIONS ARE STATE D TO BE RECEIVED ARE NOT CORPUS OF THE TRUST. 21. IN THIS RESPECT, I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE LEGAL ASPECTS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED VARIOUS EARMARKED FUNDS AS PER ITS O BJECTS, AND HAS CREDITED ALL THE DONATIONS DIRECTLY TO THESE FUNDS. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME, CLAIMING IT TO BE DONATIONS TOWARDS CORPUS. IN THIS RESPECT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE ME THAT SUCH SPECIFIC DIR ECTIONS NEED NOT BE WRITTEN, BUT CAN BE ORAL ALSO. 22. IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS CLEAR THAT SECTION LL(L)(D) GRANTS EXEMPTION TO DONATIONS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THEY SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS, BUT THE BENEFIT OF THIS SECTION IS AVAILABLE ON LY TO SUCH DONATIONS WHICH ARE WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS, AND ONLY TO TRUSTS ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. IF A TRUST LOSES EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11, CORPUS DONATIONS WOULD BE TAXABLE AS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE TERM CORPUS IS THE 'MAIN PART/ORGAN BODY, AND DENOTES THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF AN ISSUE/ENTITY. A CORPUS OF TRUST IS A PERMANENT FUND KEPT FOR THE EXISTENCE AND SUSTENANCE OF THE ORGANIZATION. IT IS KEPT FOR BASIC EXPENDITURE NEEDED FOR ADMINISTRATION AND SURVIVAL OF THE ORG ANIZATIONS, AND CAN NEITHER BE UTILIZED FOR ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, NOR TIED 11 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI TO A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY. A CORPUS FUNDS ARE NOT EARMARKED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE TO EXCLUDE FROM INCOME IS IN RESPECT OF SUCH D ONATIONS, AND NOT IN RESPECT OF DONATIONS RECEIVED FOR EXPENDITURE ON THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. ESSENTIALLY, THE CORPUS DONATIONS ARE NOT EARMARKED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE, AND THUS THE TRUST IS FREE TO USE THEM AS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE, THE SO - CALLED 'CORPUS - DONATIONS' ARE CREDITED TO VARIOUS EARMARKED FUNDS AS PER THE PURPOSE OF THESE FUNDS. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN DONATIONS TO SUCH FUNDS UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER EARMARKED FUNDS' WHICH IS SEEN TO BE IN DEPENDENT THAN THAT OF 'CORPUS FUND'. 23. MOREOVER, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THE DIRECTION OF THE DONOR, AS IS ENVISAGED IN PROVISIONS OF SEC. LL(L)(D) OF THE ACT, CAN BE ORAL, AS IS BEING CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. TO CLAIM A DONATION TO BE CORPUS DONA TION IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE DONOR GIVES A WRITTEN DIRECTION, AT THE TIME OF MAKING DONATION. AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S OWN SUBMISSION, NO SUCH WRITTEN DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN BY THE DONORS. IN ABSENCE OF A WRITTEN DIRECTION FROM THE DONOR, THE DONATION CANNOT BE TREATED AS CORPUS DONATION AND CONSEQUENTLY WILL FORM A PART OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE TRUST. 24. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FUNDS AGAINST WHICH THE DONATIONS STATED TO BE CORPUS DONATIONS, ARE IN FACT NOT CORPUS DONAT IONS, BUT FORMS PART AND PARCEL OF THE INCOME OF/THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, ON CONSIDERING SUCH DONATIONS, THE INCOME EXPENDED ON THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST FALL SHORT OF 85% OF ITS TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED ON THIS COUNT ALSO. 25. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE CHIEF TRUSTEE, SHRI NARENDRA BABURAO SURVE ALIAS SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ, USES A LAVISH BUILDING IN THE TRUST PREMISES AS HIS RESIDENCE AND THE LATEST AMENDED TRUST DEED PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF EXORBITANT SALARY OF CHIEF TRUSTEE, ALSO THAT THE TRUST WILL INCUR EXPENDITURE FOR THE TRUSTEES AND FAMILY MEMBER OF THE TRUSTEES. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT, VIDE PROVISIONS OF THE LATEST AMENDED TRUST DEED, THE TRUST HAS DEVISED A SYSTEM BY WHICH THE CHIEF TRUSTEE WILL ONLY DEFINE HIS HEIR FOR THE PO ST OF CHIEF TRUSTEE AND 'ADHISHTATA', AND THAT HEIR CANNOT TAKE PART IN THE 12 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST DURING THE LIFE OF CHIEF TRUSTEE. THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO REMOVE ANY TRUSTEE IS VESTED IN THE CHIEF TRUSTEE, AND SUCH DISQUALIFIED/DISMISSED TRUSTEE'S RIGHT, TO APPEAL HAS ALSO BEEN FORFEITED. IN THIS REGARDS IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICERS FOR THE AYS 2007 - 08, AND 2008 - 09. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAIL VIDE THE ORDERS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 30 - 12 - 2011, AND ORDER U/S 143(3) DTD. 31 - 12 - 2010, FOR THE ABOVE AYS, RESPECTIVELY. THROUGH THESE ORDERS, BOTH THE AOS HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT THERE IS INFRINGEMENT OF SEC. 13(L)(C), AND ONE OF THE AO HAS EVEN ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE TRUST HAS BECOME MORE OF A 'PRIVATE TRUST', AS THE PROPERTY IS OWNED, CONTROLLED, AND SUBJECT TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE SURVEY FAMILY. 26. IN THIS RESPECT, I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE LE GAL ASPECTS. IN THIS RESPECT THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION BEFORE ME IS MORE OF A GENERAL IN NATURE, AND HAS GONE ON TO EXPLAIN THAT, '....WITHOUT SUCH A CLAUSE, THE TRUST DEED WOULD BE UNWORKABLE. THERE IS NOTHING OUT OF ORDINARY IN SUCH A CLAUSE., AND ALS O THAT, '.....CONSIDERING THE REPUTATION OF THE TRUST AND ITS FOLLOWERS IN PUBLIC AT LARGE, THIS PROVISION IS MADE TO KEEP CONTINUOUS FAITH IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WHICH PUBLIC AT LARGE LOOKS FROM THE AFFAIRS OF THE HEAD OF THE ORGANIZATION AND THER EFORE HE HAS TO BE SELECTED CAREFULLY.....''. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT, '......CONSIDERING THE COMPLEX NATURE OF INDIAN. SOCIETY ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THEIR SENTIMENTS AND FAITH IN THEIR GURUS WHICH IS AN AGE OLD TRADITION. 27. THUS, FROM ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRUST HAS MADE AMENDMENTS WHICH HAS TAKEN AWAY THE VERY SPRIT OF THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, AS ALL THE POWERS ARE VESTED IN THE HANDS OF CHIEF TRUSTEE, AND THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IN THE DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES, AS WEL L AS IN THE NOMINATION OF THE CHIEF TRUSTEES/ TRUSTEES HAS BEEN REDUCED ALMOST TO NIL. MOREOVER, THE MEMBERSHIP TO THE TRUST IS VERY RESTRICTED AND GUIDED BY THE CLAUSES OF THE TRUST DEED. THIS GOES AGAINST THE VERY SPRIT OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST, AS IS 13 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI ENV ISAGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, .1961. EVEN THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF NATURAL JUSTICE, HAS ALSO BEEN DENIED TO SUCH A TRUSTEE, WHO IS REMOVED FROM THE BOARD, AT THE WHIM OF THE CHIEF TRUSTEE, PARTICULARLY IF HE IS A 'WHISTLE BLOWER'. THE ASSES SEE'S SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD IS GENERAL IN NATURE. ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE PERSONAL USE OF THE TRUST PROPERTY/FUNDS, AND PAYMENT OF EXORBITANT SALARY, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF 'FAITH IN GURUS' AND 'SENTIMENTS OF PEOPLE', WHICH CAN NOT BE ALLOWED. MOREOVER,, SECTION 13(L)(C) PROVIDES FOR FORFEITURE OF EXEMPTION FOR THE BENEFITS PROVIDED FOR THE INTERESTED PERSONS. THUS, UNDER SECTION 13(L)(C), IF THE INCOME OF A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION IS APPLIED FOR THE BENEFIT OF CERTAIN SPECIFIED I NTERESTED PERSONS THEN THE .EXEMPTION AVAILABLE U/S 11 WILL BE LOST. IN THIS CASE, AS IS BROUGHT OUT IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, NOT ONLY THE UNDUE BENEFIT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE INTERESTED PERSONS, I.E. THE CHIEF TRUSTEE, AND HIS FAMILY, BUT THE LATEST AMEN DMENT, MORE OR LESS HAS RENDERED THE ASSESSEE AS A PRIVATE PROPERTY, WITH ABSOLUTE CONTROL AND COMMAND AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE CHIEF TRUSTEE, FOR ALL TIMES TO COME, WITH ALMOST NEGLIGIBLE PARTICIPATION OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, IN THE DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF TH E TRUST, OR QUESTIONING THE UTILIZATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE TRUST. 28. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY INFRINGED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(L)(C) OF THE ACT, BUT THE LATEST AMENDMENTS TO THE TRUST DEED GO ES AGAINST THE VERY SPIRIT OF THE TERM 'CHARITABLE TRUST', AS IS ENVISAGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 29. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED VARIOUS CITATIONS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS OF THOSE CASE AND THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAME ARE DIFFERENTIATED ON FACTS, AND ARE NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 30. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12A OF TH E IT ACT, 1961, VIDE NO. . / . 3/217 /S - 540/43/190/99 - 2000 ON 15 - 09 - 1999 NEEDS TO BE WITHDRAWN, FOR THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, AS THE SANSTHAN FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM WITH SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES THEREIN, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE 14 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12 AA UNDER CERTIFICATE NO. . / . 3/217 /S - 540/43/190/99 - 2000 ON 15 - 09 - 1999 IS, HEREBY CANCELLED NOW, BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IT IS THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING MIXED OBJECT S PARTLY CHARITABLE AND PARTLY RELIGIOUS WHICH IS APPARENTLY CLEAR FROM THE DISCUSSION IN PARA NOS. 9 TO 17 AND I T IS S O CLEARLY EXPRESSLY IN PARA NO. 19. HE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS TRIED TO IMPRESS HER OWN THOUGHTS ON THE CONCEPT OF THE SPIRITUAL AND MORAL VALUES. HE ARGUES THAT THE RELIGION IS A MATTER OF FAITH BUT EACH CHARITABLE ACTIVITY MAY NOT B E RELATED TO RELIGIOUS FAITH. HE SUBMITS THAT THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED ON THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER THAT NO EXEMPTION CAN BE DENIED MERELY BECAUSE THE OBJECT S OF THE TRUST ARE PARTLY CHARITABLE AND PARTLY RELIGIOUS. FOR THAT PROPOSITION THE LD . COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, COCHIN BENCH THIRD MEMBER IN THE CASE OF THE SOCIETY OF PRESENTATION SISTERS VS. ITO (2009) 30 DTR 1 (COCHIN) AND CALICUT ISLAMIC CULTURAL SOCIETY VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), KOZHIKODE (2009) 28 SOT 148 (COCHIN). H E FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN RESPECT OF GIVING BENEFIT TO THE DONATIONS MORE PARTICULARLY WHETHER THE DONATIONS ARE THE PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST OR REVENUE IN NATURE , T HE OBJECTION OF THE LD. CIT IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON THE RECORD. HE SUBMITS THAT FOR ARRIVING TO THIS CONCLUSION MORE PARTICULARLY IN PARA NO. 24 , ONLY GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE BUT THERE IS NO FINDING SUPPORTED BY THE PROPER REASONING. THE LD. COMMISSIONER TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPLIED 85% OF ITS SURPLUS INCOME ON THE CHARITABLE OBJECT AND FOR MAKING OUT SAID CASE , LD. COMMISSIONER DISCARDED ALL THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY ASSESSED FOR YEARS TOGETHER BY THE TAX 15 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI AUTHORITIES. H E SUBMITS THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER ON THE AMENDMENT S TO THE TRUST DEED ARE TOTALLY MISPLACED . HE REFERRED TO THE COMPILATION MORE PARTICULARLY THE CHART SHOWING THE DIFFERENT AMENDMENT S TO THE TRUST DEED AND SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO CH ANGE IN THE POWERS OF THE CHIEF TRUST EE AS THE SAME POWERS WERE THERE IN THE EARLIER TRUST DEED ALSO. HE SUBMITS THAT LD. CIT HAS NOTED THAT THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT SAID OBSERVATION IS NOT CORRECT . T HE ASSESSEE WAS GI VEN VERY SHORT TIME AS THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND SAME WAS RETURNABLE ON 19 - 03 - 2012 AND THE ORDER IS PASSED ON 21 - 03 - 2012. IN THE SHORT NOTICE HOW THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE ALL REQUIRED DETAILS. HE SUBMITS THAT ALL THE POOJA AND TEMPLE MANAGEMENT IS WITH THE SANJEEVAN TRUST AND WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SAID TRUST ARE RELIGIOUS OR NOT HOW THAT IS CONCERNED WITH THE STATUS AND OBJECT OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE TRUST ? HE REFERRED TO SEC. 12AA(3) AND SUBMITS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER EXCEEDED THE POWER VESTED IN HER BY LAW AS THE LD. COMMISSIONER CAN ONLY SEE THE ACTIVITIES AND NOT THE OBJECT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. AGARWAL MITRA MANDAL TRUST VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) (2007) 106 ITD 531. II. MAH ARASHTRA ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (MAEER) VS. CIT (2010) 36 DTR 321. III. CHATURVEDI HAR PRASAD EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. CIT (2010) 134 TTJ (LUCKNOW) 781. IV. H.P. GOVERNMENT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY VS. CIT (2010) 46 DTR (CHD)(TRIB) 1 26. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN RENDERING SERVICES PERTAINING TO ERADICATION OF SUPERSTITION, DE - ADDICTION, ERADICATION OF THE DOWRY SYSTEM, PROPAGATING IDEAS OF DE - 16 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI ADDICTIONS, BY HOLDING CAMPS FOR THIS PURPOSE SINCE ITS IN CEPTION. THE CAMPS ARE HELD IRRESPECTIVE OF CASTE, CREED AND RELIGION. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND FAMILIES HAVE BEEN BENEFITED FROM THESE SERVICES, WHICH ARE RENDERED FREE OF COST. THE CHIEF TRUSTEE HAS PLAYED PIVOTAL ROLE IN RENDERING THESE SERVICES. HE ADDR ESSES THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN RESPECT OF MATTERS STATED ABOVE ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS DURING THE YEAR. PEOPLE GATHER IN THOUSANDS TO HEAR HIM. THE STADIUM AND THE AUDITORIUM ARE CONSTRUCTED TO ENABLE THE TRUST TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES TO ALL THESE PEOPLES. HE SUBMITS THAT STADIUM IS NOT A PLAYGROUND, BUT IS A STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED FOR ACCOMMODATING THE PUBLIC AT LARGE WHO ATTEND THE DISCOURSES AND VARIOUS CAMPS IN RESPECT OF ABOVE ACTIVITIES. THE P EOPLE WHO ATTEND DE - ADDICTION PROGRAMS ARE REQUIRED TO STAY AT THE PREMISES AND UNDERGO MEDITATION PROGRAMS. THESE PROGRAMS HELP THEM TO REMAIN FOCUSED ON THE DE - ADDICTION OBJECTIVE. IT MAKES THEIR MIND STRONGER AND RESISTS IT FROM THEIR ILL HABITS OF ADDICTION. IT GIVES THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES' MENTAL PEACE WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST AS PER CLAUSE NO 7(C) OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 04.04.2005 (REFER L/F NO 332 OF PAPER BOOK NO. 3). HE ARGUES THAT IF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL EVILS BY PUTTING HUMAN EFFORTS , CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE NOT IN THE GENERAL INTEREST OF THE SOCIETY AT LARGE. 5. 1 HE SUBMITS THAT AS A SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURE TO THIS MAIN ACTIVITY, TEMPLES ARE REQUIRED. LD CONSULE ARGUES THAT FOR EXAMPLE IF PEOPLE VISIT THE TEMPLE, PRAY TO GOD, THEIR MINDS ARE CLEANED - BAD THOUGHS WALK OUT AND GOOD THOUGHTS ENTER, BY ATTENDING PRABHODHAN AND MEDITATION CENTRE THEN THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT LARGE AND COVERED IN THE DEFINI TION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE. . THE T EMPLES ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT THE OBJECT OF PREACHING AND PROPAGATING THE PHILOSOPHY OF 17 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI MEDITATION AS A MEANS OF ATTAINMENT OF PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL HEALTH, TREATING PEOPLE HAVING NOTIONS OF BLIND FAITH, CURING ADDICTS AND THE LIKE. TOWARDS THIS END, THE SPIRITUAL ATMOSPHERE IN THE VICINITY OF THE MEDITATION CENTRE NEEDS TO BE PURE. SPIRITUALITY AND IMPROVEMENT IN THOUGHTS PERTAINING TO SOCIAL VALUES, MORAL VALUES, ETHICS AND UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF S OUL REQUIRES PURITY IN THOUGHTS AND IT IS BEST ACHIEVED AFTER OFFERING PRAYERS TO GOD. THESE TEMPLES ARE OPEN TO ALL WITHOUT DISCRETION BEING MADE BETWEEN ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AS TO THEIR CASTE, CREED AND RELIGION. THE ASSESSEE TRUST NEVER SUPPORTS S UPERSTITION AND MAKE AWARENESS IN SOCIETY AT LARGE, NOT TO GET INFLUENCE BY SUPERSTITION. 5. 2 HE SUBMITS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FRUSTRATED, DEPRESSED, DEPENDENT ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR OLD AGE, GET SOLACE IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOP A POSITIVE ATTITUDE AN D APP ROACH OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD. THIS REDUCES ATTEMPTS TO SUICIDES, THEFTS, ROBBERIES, FIGHTS QUARRELS ALL OF WHICH ARE AMONGST THE WORST THING/ EVILS BEING FACED BY INDIAN SOCIETY. TO CREATE A HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE, THE TRUST HAS CONSTRUCTED TEMPLES AT TH E PREMISES. HE SUBMITS THAT THE SPIRITUAL AND MORAL UP - LIFTMENT ACTIVIT IES ARE TREATED AS RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY BY CIT - II, KOLHAPUR . 5. 3 HE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER CANNOT GO TO THE OBJECT S WHETHER CHARITABLE OR NOT BUT POWER IS LIMITED TO MAKE T HE ENQUIRY WITH A VIEW ONLY SATISFY H ERSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITY VIS - - VIS OBJECT S OF THE TRUST. HE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS ALSO MADE THE OBSERVATION ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 13(1)(C) BUT THAT IS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HELD IN THE CASE OF AGARWAL MITRA MANDAL TRUST (SUPRA). HE SUBMITS THAT SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION OF LD. COMMISSIONER IS CONCERNED THAT THERE MUST BE A WRITTEN DIRECTION FOR THE DONATIONS TO FORM PART OF THE CORPUS IS ALSO AGAINST THE WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIT 18 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI (EXEMPTION) VS. SRI RAMKRISHNA SEVA ASHRAM PAVAGADA, ITA NO. 248 OF 2010 JUDGMENT DATED 17 - 10 - 2011 (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). 5.4 LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE CHIEF TRU STEE DEVOTES HIS ENTIRE TIME AND ATTENTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRUST. HIS MESSAGE TO THE SOCIETY IS LIVE AND OTHER TO LIVE. THE CHIEF TRUSTEE REGULARLY ATTENDS THE PUBLIC, WHO APPROACH TO THE TRUST FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE TRUST, WITH V ARIOUS IS SUES RELATING TO DE - ADD ITCTION (VYASAN MUKTI), BLIND FAITH (ANDH SHRADDHA NIRMULAN) AND MEDITATION ETC. AND TEACHES THEM MORAL VALUES, ETHICS, SOCIAL VALUES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ETC. HE TRAVELS' ALL OVER INDIA FOR PROVIDING THESE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE T RUST. HE ALSO REGULARLY MANAGES THE ENTIRE AFFAIRS OF THIS TRUST BY PLANNING, ORGANIZING, EXECUTING AND OVERLOOKING ALL THE DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. HE HAS DEDICATED HIS ENTIRE TIME AND ATTENTION FOR THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TR UST. THUS THE SALARY AND ACCOMMODATION FACILITY IS IN THE FORM OF FULL - TIME SERVICE BEING PROVIDED BY THE CHIEF TRUSTEE TO THE TRUST. 5.5 LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN PARA 25, OF THE ORDER U/S 12 AA (3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, LD. COMMISSIONER HAS A LLEGED THAT THE CHIEF TRUSTEE USES A LAVISH BUILDING IN THE TRUST PREMISES AS HIS RESIDENCE AND THE LATEST AMENDED TRUST DEED PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF EXORBITANT SALARY TO CHIEF TRUSTEE, ALSO THAT THE TRUST WILL INCUR EXPENDITURE FOR THE TRUSTEES AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE TRUSTEES. HE SUBMITS THAT THE TRUST IS REGISTERED AS CHARITABLE TRUST BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.09.1999. ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION , THE SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATI ON DATED 21.07.1999 WAS ENCLOSED. VIDE CLAUSE NO 10(B)(1) OF THE DEED DATED 21.07.1999 (REFER PAGE NO 487 AND 488 OF PAPER BOOK NO 4), THE PROVISION FOR FREE OF COST RESIDENCE FACILITY AND APPROPRIATE REMUNERATION FOR RUNNING LIVELIHOOD OF THE CHIEF TRUSTE E WAS MADE. A SIMILAR PROVISION 19 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI IS MADE VIDE CLAUSE NUMBER 11(B)(1) OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 04.04.2005 (REFER PAGE NO 340 AND 341 OF PAPER BOOK NO 3). THIS CLAUSE PERMITS PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION TO THE CHIEF TRUSTEE AND HIS FAMILY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAC T THAT THE CHIEF TRUSTEE DEVOTES HIS FULL TIME FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THIS SHOWS THAT THIS CLAUSE IS NOT INTRODUCED THROUGH AMENDED TRUST DEED DATED 04.04.2005. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CALLING TRUST'S EXPLANATIONS, WH Y THE RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2009 SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED, WAS ISSUED BY THE SAME CIT ON 08.02.2010. (PAPER BOOK NO 1 PAGE NO. 83 AND 84) AND V IDE POINT NO. ( II ) OF THE SAID NOTICE, THE EXPLANATION ON THE MATTERS RELATING T O FACILITIES PROVIDED TO CHIEF TRUSTEE WERE CALLED FOR. THE DETAILED SUBMISSION REPLYING THE QUERIES WAS FILED BY THE TRUST ON 18.02.2010 (PAPER BOOK NO. 1 PAGE NO. 89 TO 91) AND AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE THE RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G WAS GRANTED TO T HE TRUST VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 24.02.2010 (PAPER BOOK NO 1 PAGE NO 108) WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE CIT WAS SATISFIED ON THESE ISSUES. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2006 TO 31.03.20 09, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE CIT - II, KOLHAPUR ON 31.07.2006 (PAPER BOOK NO 1 PAGE NO. 81) REQUESTING THE TRUST TO W HETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(L)(C) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF HONORARIUM AND PAYMENT OF LIP IN RESP ECT OF THE TRUSTEE. THE DETAILED SUBMISSION REPLYING THE QUERIES WAS FILED AND AFTER CONSIDERATION THE SAID REPLY, THE RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G WAS GRANTED TO THE TRUST VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 04.08.2006 (PAPER BOOK NO 1 PAGE NO 82) WHICH CLEARLY SHOW S THAT THE CIT WAS SATISFIED ON THESE ISSUES. HE PLEADED FOR CANCELLING THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE ACT AND RESTORING THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST. PER CONTRA, THE LD. CIT (DR) SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER CANCEL LING THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 20 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI 6 . BEFORE WE GO INTO THE ISSUES, WE MAY LIKE TO REFER TO THE RELEVANT PROVISION S OF THE ACT IN WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS PASSED THE PRESENT IMPUGNED ORDER. 6 .1 SEC. 12AA(3) READS AS UNDER: SEC. 12AA(3) (1) .. (2). (3) WHERE A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OR HAS OBTAINED REGISTRATION AT ANY TIME UNDER SECTION 12A AS IT STOOD BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1996 (33 O F 1996) AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, HE SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN W RITING CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION SHALL BE PASSED UNLESS SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. ORIGINALLY SUB - SEC. (3) WAS INSER TED TO SEC 12AA BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2004 . T HE SAID SUB - SECTION HAS UNDERGONE THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2010 W.E.F. 01 - 10 - 2004 AS EARLIER THE SAID PROVISION ONLY REFERR ED TO THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S. 12AA BUT TH ERE WAS NO REFERE NCE OF SEC. 12A , AS THE SEC. 12AA WAS BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1996 W.E.F. 01 - 06 - 2007. AS PER THE CHRONOLOGY EVENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS CONSTITUTED BY THE TRUST DEED DATED 02 - 12 - 1993 AND 13 - 04 - 1994 THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS GRANTED THE FIRST REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT ON 16 - 02 - 1995 PAGE NO. 23 OF THE COMPILATION. THERE WAS SOME AMENDMENT TO THE TRUST DEED OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21 - 07 - 1999 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AS SISTANT CHARITY 21 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI COMMISSIONER, RATNAGIRI ON WHICH THE ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 50A(1) OF THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST, 1950 ON 20 - 07 - 1999 GIVING THE APPROVAL THE AMENDMENT MADE TO THE TRUST DEED DATED 02 - 12 - 1993. THERE WAS FURTHER AM ENDMENT TO THE TRUST DEED AND WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, RATNAGIRI VIDE HIS JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 04 - 04 - 2005 ALLOWED THE AMENDMENT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GRANTED THE RECOGNITION U/S. 80G OF THE ACT ON 1 0 - 07 - 2001 AND EVEN AFTER THE THIRD TRUST DEED THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED THE RECOGNITION U/S. 80G VIDE ORDER DATED 04 - 08 - 2006 FOR THE PERIOD OF 01 - 04 - 2006 TO 31 - 03 - 2009 AND AGAIN VIDE ORDER DATED 24 - 02 - 2010 FOR THE PERIOD OF 01 - 04 - 2009 TO 31 - 03 - 2011. 8 . THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS GIVEN THE DIFFERENT REASONS FOR EXERCISING THE POWERS U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT. THE FIRST REASON GIVEN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS HAVING MIXED OBJECTS , PARTLY RELIGIOUS AND PARTLY CHARITABLE. IT IS SEEN THAT T HE SAID OBSERVATION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES , AUDITORIUM CENTER , STADIUM , CONDUCTING DISCOURSE, ETC. THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS INTERPRETED THE TERM SPIRITUAL AND MORAL AND CAME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT IF THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST IS ESSENTIALLY FOR SPIRITUAL AND MORAL UPLIFTMENT OF THE PEOPLE THEN IT IS A RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BARKATE SAIFIYAH SOCIETY - 213 ITR 492 (GUJ . H.C.) IT IS HELD AS UNDER: 7. THE PHR ASE 'RELIGIOUS PURPOSE' INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, AND THE ADVANCEMENT (SIC).HOWEVER, THE PHRASE CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS DEFINED UNDER S. 2(15) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER : '(15) `CHARITABLE PURPOSE' INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE P OOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF 22 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY NOT INVOLVING THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT ;' 8. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IS INCLUSIVE AND IT COVERS A WIDER FIELD THAN THE FIELD COVERED BY THE WORDS 'RELIGIOUS PURPOSE'. FURTHER, IN SOME CASES, EVEN A RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY BY A PARTICULAR SECT WOULD BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY ; FOR SOME, SUPPLY OF FODDER TO ANIMALS AND CATTLE IS A RELIGIOUS OBJECT, WHILE TO OTHERS IT MAY BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, ACCORDING TO HINDU RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. SIMILARLY, KHAIRAT UNDER THE MOHAMEDAN LAW WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. THE SAID ACTIVITIES MAY BE FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE TO SOME. HENCE, IN MANY CASES, BOT H THE PURPOSES MAY BE OVERLAPPING. THE PURPOSES MAY HAVE BOTH THE ELEMENTS, CHARITY AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS. 9. WHILE DEALING WITH WHAT IS 'RELIGIOUS' OR 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IT IS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMCHANDRA SHUKLA VS. SHREE MAHAD EOJI, AIR 1970 SC 458, THAT THERE IS NO LINE OF DEMARCATION IN THE HINDU SYSTEM BETWEEN RELIGION AND CHARITY. INDEED, CHARITY IS REGARDED AS PART OF RELIGION. WHILE DISCUSSING THIS ASPECT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER (AT PAGE 464) : 'HI NDU PIETY FOUND EXPRESSION IN GIFTS TO IDOLS TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND FOR ALL PURPOSES CONSIDERED MERITORIOUS IN THE HINDU SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS SYSTEM. THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH COURTS IN INDIA HAVE FOR A LONG TIME ADOPTED THE TECHNICAL MEANING OF CHARITABL E TRUSTS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES WHICH THE COURTS IN ENGLAND HAVE PLACED UPON THE TERM `CHARITY' IN THE STATUTE OF ELIZABETH, AND, THEREFORE, ALL PURPOSES WHICH ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW ARE CHARITABLE WILL BE CHARITABLE UNDER HINDU LAW, THE HINDU CONCEPT O F CHARITY IS SO COMPREHENSIVE THAT THERE ARE OTHER PURPOSES IN ADDITION WHICH ARE RECOGNISED AS CHARITABLE PURPOSES. HENCE, WHAT ARE PURELY RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND WHAT RELIGIOUS PURPOSES WILL BE CHARITABLE PURPOSES MUST BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO HINDU NOTION S AND HINDU LAW. 10. AS OBSERVED BY MUKHERJEA IN HINDU LAW AND RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUSTS, SECOND EDN., PAGE 11, THERE IS NO LINE OF DEMARCATION IN THE HINDU SYSTEM BETWEEN RELIGION AND CHARITY. INDEED, CHARITY IS REGARDED AS PART OF RELIGION, FOR, G IFTS BOTH FOR 23 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES ARE IMPELLED BY THE DESIRE TO ACQUIRE RELIGIOUS MERIT. ACCORDING TO PANDIT PRANNATH SARASWATI, THESE FELL UNDER TWO HEADS, ISTHA AND PURTA. THE FORMER MEANT SACRIFICES, AND SACRIFICIAL GIFTS AND THE LATTER ME ANT CHARITIES. AMONG THE ISTHA ACTS ARE VEDIC SACRIFICES, GIFTS TO THE PRIESTS AT THE TIME OF SUCH SACRIFICES, PRESERVATIONS OF VEDAS, RELIGIOUS AUSTERITY, RECTITUDE, VAISVADEV SACRIFICES AND HOSPITALITY. AMONG THE PURTA ACTS ARE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENAN CE OF TEMPLES, TANKS, WELLS, PLANTING OF GROVES, GIFTS OF FOOD, DHARAMSHALAS, PLACES FOR DRINKING WATER, RELIEF OF THE SICK, AND PROMOTION OF EDUCATION AND LEARNING. (CF. PANDIT PRANNATH SARASWATI'S HINDU LAW OF ENDOWMENTS, 1897, PAGES 26 - 27). ISTHA AND P URTA ARE IN FACT REGARDED AS THE COMMON DUTIES OF THE TWICE BORN CLASS. (CF. PANDIT SARASWATI, PAGE 27).' 11. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT A TRUST CAN BE EITHER FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES OR FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES OR IT CAN BE FOR BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 10 . IN THE CASE OF CALICUT ISLAMIC CULTURAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) IT IS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: 21. THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE QUOTED IN N.S. BINDRAS INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES (NINTH EDITION, PAGE NO. 15). IN SHOR T, THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CANNOT BE TREATED AS INSTRUMENT OF MATHEMATICS PRECISION. NOW THE QUESTION IS CAN IT BE SAID THAT IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AS PER THE LANGUAGE USED IN CL. (A) TO S. 11(1) OF THE ACT THAT SAVE THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 60 T O 63 OF THE ACT FOR CLAIMING THE INCOME EXEMPT WHICH IS DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST WHICH MUST WHOLLY FOR THE CHARITABLE OR WHOLLY RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. IF THE INSTITUTION OR TRUST ARE ENGAGED INTO THE MIXED OBJECT WHICH ARE PARTLY RELIGIO US AND PARTLY CHARITABLE OR AS PER THE CASE OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) THE INSTITUTION OR TRUST IS HAVING THE MIXED ACTIVITIES OF CHARITY AS WELL AS RELIGION THEN THE EXEMPTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL IS THAT THER E IS A VERY THIN LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE CHARITY AND RELIGION. EVERY RELIGION IS HAVING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CHARITY AND MANY CHARITABLE PURPOSES MAY NOT HAVE THE PRINCIPLES OF RELIGION, THOUGH THE RELIGION IS THE QUESTION OF FAITH. IT IS TO BE ME NTIONED HERE THAT 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' IN S. 2(15) OF THE ACT MAKING THE INCLUSIVE 24 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI DEFINITION AND TRYING TO MAKE THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE MORE ELABORATE BUT THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF THE 'RELIGIOUS PURPOSE' UNDER THE ACT. NO DOUBT THE LAW RECOGNISES NO PURPO SE AS CHARITABLE UNLESS IT IS OF THE PUBLIC CHARACTER. IN SHORT, IT SHOULD BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY OR THE SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY AS HELD IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. AS FAR AS RELIGIOUS PURPOSE IS CONCERNED MEANS RELIGIOUS PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PERSONAL LAW APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF BAI HIRBAI RAHIM ALOO PAROO & KESARBAI DHARAMSEY KAKOO CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS TRUST VS. C IT (1968) 68 ITR 821 (BOM). THERE ARE INNUMERABLE EXAMPLES WHERE THERE WILL BE VERY THIN LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE PURPOSES TO IDENTIFY WHICH ARE THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES OR WHICH ARE THE RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, IT IS NOT THE CASE O F THE DEPARTMENT EITHER THAT ANY OF THE BARS PROVIDED UNDER S. 13 OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO BOTH THESE ASSESSEES AS PER THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE AO AS WELL BY THE CIT(A). AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, IT REQUIRES THAT THERE SHO ULD BE NEXUS BETWEEN THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND THE INCOME UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE AO AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A) IS THAT THE PURPOSE SHOULD BE WHOLLY CHARITABLE OR WHOLLY REL IGIOUS. WE ARE AFRAID, WHETHER SUCH INTERPRETATION CAN BE ACCEPTED. IN OUR OPINION, SAID INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES IS ONLY ACADEMIC. WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS CATEGORICALLY DEFINED THE PURPOSES LIKE RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE AND IF THE ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED AS PER THEIR OBJECTS IN MIXED ACTIVITIES, WHICH ARE PARTLY CHARITABLE AND PARTLY RELIGIOUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT S. 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE SUCH SITUATION. 1 1 . NOW, THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 11(1)(D) AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DONATIONS WERE GIVEN WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THEY SHOULD FORM PART OF THE CORPUS. IN OUR OPINION THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER ON THE SAID ASPECT IS BEYOND THE P OWERS VESTED U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, IN THE CASE OF AGARWAL MITRA MANDAL TRUST (SUPRA) IT IS HELD AS UNDER: 25 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ANY TRUST OR INSTITUT ION SEEKING TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 11 AND 12 IS REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A. THE PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION IS PRESCRIBED IN S. 12AA AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - S. (1) OF THAT SECTION, THE CIT [DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMPTION) IN THE PRESENT CASE] IS EMPOWERED TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST AND ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION BEFORE GRANTING THE REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A. ONCE THE CIT HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE NOR DOUBTED ITS CHARITABLE OBJECT, HE CANNOT REFUSE TO GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REGISTRATION, HOWEVER, WAS REFUSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMPTION) ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE OBJECT CLAUSE NOS. 3(1) AND 3(2), THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE BELONGING TO VAISH COMMUNITY ONLY WHICH WAS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF S. 13(1)(B). HOWEVER, AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIAT ION (SUPRA), AN OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO THE SECTION OF THE PUBLIC IS AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND TO SERVE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE OBJECT SHOULD BE TO BENEFIT THE WHOLE OF MANKIND OR ALL PERSONS IN A PARTICULAR COUNTRY OR STATE. EXPLAINING FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE INTENTION IS TO BENEFIT A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SPECIFIED INDIVIDUAL. RELYING ON THIS DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURJI DEVI. KUNJI LAL JAIPURIA CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT TRUST CREATED FOR GIVING MEDICAL AID, SOCIAL WELFARE AND UPLIFTMENT OF POOR MEMBERS OF VAISH COMMU NITY IS, THEREFORE, FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS ANOTHER DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PT. RAM SHANKER MISRA TRUST (1996) 222 ITR 252 (ALL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED B Y A TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE COMMUNITY IS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON A PUBLIC CHARITABLE OBJECT. THE PROPOSITION PROPOUNDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS INDICATED IN OBJECT CLS. 3(1) AND 3(2) OF ITS TRUST DEED WERE OF CHARITABLE NATURE AND SINCE THE POWERS OF THE CIT/DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMPTION) CONFERRED UNDER S. 12AA WERE CONFINED TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE 26 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIV ITIES OF THE TRUST AS WELL AS NATURE OF ITS OBJECT BEING CHARITABLE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST UNDER S. 12A MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID OBJECTS WERE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIO NS OF S. 13(1)(B). AS HELD BY LUCKNOW BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ST. DON BOSCO EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. CIT (2004) 84 TTJ (LUCKNOW) 805 : (2004) 90 ITD 477 (LUCKNOW), THE CIT UNDER S. 12AA IS EMPOWERED TO SATISFY HIMSELF ONLY ABOUT THE OBJECT OF THE T RUST AND ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AND SUCH POWER DOES NOT EXTEND TO ELIGIBILITY OF THE TRUST/INSTITUTION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11 R/W S. 13 WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE AO. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ARYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (DEL) 462 : (2005) 93 ITD 546 (DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SO LONG AS THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 11, 12 AND 12A ARE COMPLIED WITH, THE EXEMPTION CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 13. 7. AS ALREADY NOTED, THE PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION LAID DOWN IN S. 12AA REQUIRES THE CIT TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES AND OBJECT OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND AS SUCH, THE SCOP E OF HIS POWERS IS LIMITED IN THIS REGARD TO MAKE SUCH ENQUIRIES, AS HE MAY DEEM FIT, TO SATISFY HIMSELF IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO ASPECTS. AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), AN OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO THE SECTION OF THE PUBLIC IS AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND TO SERVE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE INTENTION IS TO BENEFIT A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SPECIFIED INDIVIDUAL. THIS DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT FOLLOW ED SUBSEQUENTLY BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURJI DEVI KUNJI LAL JAIPURIA CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF PT. RAM SHANKER MISRA TRUST (SUPRA) TO HOLD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY A TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE COMMUNITY I S AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON A PUBLIC CHARITABLE OBJECT STILL HOLDS THE FIELD NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN S. 13(1)(B) SINCE THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' GIVEN IN S. 2(15) CONTINUES TO REMAIN THE SAME. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 13(1) ARE THUS NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SAID SECTION BEGINS WITH THE WORDS 'NOTHING CONTAINED IN S. 11 OR S. 12 SHALL OPERATE SO AS TO EXCLUDE, FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, OF THE PERSON.........' WHICH C LEARLY ENVISAGES OPERATION OF S. 11 27 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI OR S. 12 BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF S. 13 CAN BE APPLIED OR INVOKED IN A GIVEN CASE. IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS CAN BE APPLIED OR INVOKED ONLY AT THE TIME OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON WHO IS CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11 OR S. 12. BOTH THESE SITUATIONS CONTEMPLATED IN S. 13 CAN ARISE ONLY AND ONLY IF REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A IS GRANTED TO THE SAID PERSON. IF THE SAME IS NOT GRANTED AND THE PERSON IS REFUSED THE REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A, HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM ANY BENEFIT AVAILABLE UNDER S. 11 OR 12 AND THERE WILL BE NO OCCASION TO THE AO TO INVOKE OR APPLY S. 13 IN HIS CASE. THIS POSITION WOULD NOT ONLY BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AS LAID DOWN IN SS. 11, 12, 12A, 12AA AND 13 BUT THE SAME MAY ALSO CAUSE PREJUDICE/HARDSHIP TO THE PERSONS IN CERTAIN CASES. FOR INSTANCE, THE OBJECTS, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRUST IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ESTABLISHED, AS INDICATED IN OBJECT CLS. 3(1) AND 3(2), NO DOUBT ARE FOR TH E BENEFITS OF A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY, VIZ., VAISH. NEVERTHELESS, AS PER OBJECT CL. 3(4), IT WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED TO RUN SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, HOSPITALS, ETC. FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC AT LARGE. IN THIS SITUATION, IF THE REGISTRATION APPLIED FOR UNDER S. 12A I S NOT GRANTED TO IT FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF S. 13(1)(B) AND IT IS ULTIMATELY FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED THE OBJECTS AS INDICATED IN CL. 3(4) ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC AT LARGE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN AS PER OBJECT CLS. 3(1) AND 3(2), IT WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ANY BENEFITS WHICH OTHERWISE WERE AVAILABLE TO IT UNDER S. 11 OR S. 12. THIS CERTAINLY IS NOT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION AS REFLECTED IN THE SCHEME LAID DOWN IN SS. 11, 12, 12A, 12AA AND 13. ON THE CONTRARY, THE PHRASEOLOGY OF S. 13, AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, MAKES IT EXPLICITLY CLEAR THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS BECOME OPERATIVE OR RELEVANT ONLY AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT WHEN THE AO IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BENEFITS UNDER S. 11 OR S. 12 WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE APPLICATION OF S. 13 THUS FALLS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE AO AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN CAN BE INVOKED BY HIM WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AND N OT BY THE CIT WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12AA . 1 2 . HENCE, IN OUR OPINION THE LD. COMMISSIONER EXCEEDED HER JURISDICTION ON THE SAID ISSUE ALSO FOR GIVING ONE OF THE REASONS FOR CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSE E BY EXERCISING THE POWERS U/S. 28 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI 12AA(3) OF THE ACT. THE NEXT OBJECTION IS IN RESPECT OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE TRUST DEED . THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS REGISTERED UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950 AND ALL THE AMENDMEN T S MADE TO THE TRUST DEED WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ENQUIRY AND SCRUTINY BY THE ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, RATNAGIRI WHICH DETAILS ARE GIVEN HERE - IN - ABOVE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS GIVEN ONE MORE REASON S THAT THE POWERS TO APPOINT OR RE MOVE ANY TRUSTEE IS VESTED IN THE C HIEF TRUSTEE ONLY AND LD. COMMISSIONER HAS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS LIKE PRIVATE TRUST. AS PER THE AMENDED TRUST DEED FILED BEFORE US IN OUR OPINION THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED T HE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE TRUST BUT SHE IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST. SEC. 12AA(3) LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER TO EXAMINE THE ACTIVITIES VIS - - VIS THE OBJECT S OF THE TRUST. 1 3 . ON PERUSAL OF THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED OR DER , WE FIND THAT NOWHERE IT IS OBJECTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER THAT THE OBJECT S OF THE TRUST ARE NOT CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS. MOREOVER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS MADE CERTAIN OBSERVATION ON THE FAITH OF THE PEOPLE/ SOCIETY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO M AKE THE PERSONAL USE OF THE TRUST PROPERTY/FUNDS AND ENJOYING EXORBITANT SALARY BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF FAITH IN GURUS AND SENTIMENT OF PEOPLE WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN OUR OPINION THE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE RIG HTS OF ANY PERSON AND SHOULD AVOID UNWARRANTED OBSERVATIONS WHICH MAY BE HIS OR HER PERSONAL VIEWS OR OPINION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE AS PER POWERS VESTED IN HER B Y THE ACT TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS CONTEMPLATED U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT AND HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER U/S. 12AA(3) CANNOT BE SUPPORTED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CANCEL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. 29 ITA NO. 994/PN/2012, SADGURU NARENDRA MAHARAJ SANSTHAN, RATNAGIRI COMMISSIONER U/S. 12AA(3) DATED 21 - 03 - 2012 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 - 0 9 - 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( G . S . PAN NU ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT - II, KOLHAPUR 4 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 5 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSI STANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE