MR THOMAS AND ANNAMMA KOTTOOPARAMPIL MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,KOTTAYAM V. CIT EXEMPTION, CIT EXEMPTION , KOCHI

ITA 303/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Mr. Thomas and Annamma Kottooparampil Memorial Educational and Charitable Trust, which appealed against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi, denying them approval under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The denial was based on the grounds that the trust filed their application for regular approval after the prescribed time limit and that the trust was engaged in commercial activities. The Tribunal examined the interpretation of the time limit for filing the application and the relevance of the trust's engagement in commercial activities to the approval under section 80G.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474732 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Luke v. IRC (1996) 54 ITR 692, K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIT KUMAR DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: JOSE M.P.
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM ITA No. 303/Coch/2024 Mr. Thomas and Annamma Kottooparampil Memorial Exducational and Charitable Trust Kottooparambil, Kallara P.O. Kootayam 686611 [PAN: AADTM2770L] .......... Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Old Railway Station Road Ernakulam 682018 .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Jose M.P., CA Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 30.12.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee trust directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kochi dated 27.03.2024 denying grant of approval u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act'). 2. The appellant is a trust registered u/s.12A of the Act. It had applied for approval under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub- section (5) of section 80G. The trust was granted provisional 2 ITA No. 303/Coch/2024 Mr. Thomas ad Annamma Kottooparampil approval vide order dated 21.02.2022 valid upto the period 31.03.2025. Subsequently, the appellant trust filed application in Form No. 10AB under clause (iii) of first provision to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act on 26.09.2023. The said application came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 27.03.2024 on the ground that the appellant trust had not filed the application within the prescribed time limit under clause (iii) of first provision to sub- section (5) of section 80G of the Act. According to the learned CIT(Exemptions), the appellant trust was required to file the application in Form No.10AB for regular approval within six months from the date of provisional approval, i.e. on or before 31.03.2022, or as extended upto 30.09.2022 as per the CBDT Circular No.08/2022 dated 31.03.2022 whichever is earlier. Since the activities of the trust was already commenced as on the date of provisional approval, i.e. on 24.04.2008. The present application in Form No.10AB was filed by the appellant trust on 26.09.2023. The learned CIT also concluded that the appellant was engaged in commercial activities. Therefore, the learned CIT(Exemptions) denied the grant of approval on the grounds of delay. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant trust is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant trust has commenced the activities on 3 ITA No. 303/Coch/2024 Mr. Thomas ad Annamma Kottooparampil 16.03.2011 even as on the date of grant of provisional approval on 01.10.2021. In this connection, for better appreciation relevant provisions of proviso to section 80G are extracted below : \"Provided that the institution or fund referred to in clause (vi) shall make an application in the prescribed form and manner to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, for grant of approval,— (i) ............................................ (ii) ............................................ (iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier; The literal interpretation of clause (iii) of proviso means that in case the institution has been provisionally approved, application in the prescribed form for grant of the requisite approval u/s.80G(5) is required to be made six months prior to expiry of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of the activities whichever is earlier. 5. There can be two categories of institutions; (1) the institutions which had commenced the activity subsequent to the grant of provisional approval (2) the institutions which had commenced the activity much before the date of grant of provisional approval (2). No doubt, in the case of former category the literal interpretation of clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) does not lead to any hardship, absurdity or injustice. It is only in the case of later category the literal interpretation leads to hardship, absurdity or 4 ITA No. 303/Coch/2024 Mr. Thomas ad Annamma Kottooparampil injustice as it is impossible to comply with the time limits prescribed under the proviso which had commenced the activities six months prior to the date of grant of provisional approval. Thus, the provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. In such a situation, it is now a settled rule of construction that the courts may modify the language used by the Legislature or even \"do some violence\" to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction vide Luke v. IRC (1996) 54 ITR 692. The court may also in such a case read into the statutory provision a condition which, though not expressed, is implicit as constituting the basic assumption underlying the statutory provision. 6. In our considered opinion, in the light of the above discussion, a fair and reasonable construction clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) would be to read into it a condition that in the place of word 'earlier' word \"later\" be substituted and can be read as under : \"(iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is later; 7. We are also fortified in adopting the above construction by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 (SC). 8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the appellant trust commenced its actual activities on 16.03.2011 and in 5 ITA No. 303/Coch/2024 Mr. Thomas ad Annamma Kottooparampil view of the above construction of clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) the appellant trust is entitled to file the application for regular approval prior to six months of expiry of the provisional approval, i.e., on or before 31.03.2024. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application filed by the appellant trust for grant of regular approval is barred by limitation prescribed under the proviso to section 80G(5). Therefore, the learned CIT(Exemptions) is not justified in denying the grant of approval u/s.80G(5) to the appellant trust on the ground of delay in submission of Form No.10AB. The issue whether the appellant is engaged in commercial activity or not cannot be gone into at the stage of grant of approval u/s. 80G of the Act as such issues fall outside the ambit of the scope of enquiry envisaged under sub-section (v) of section 80G of the Act. In the circumstances, we remand the matter to the file of CIT(Exemptions) with a direction to dispose of the de novo application on merits. 9. In the result, the appeal by appellant trust stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th December, 2024 Sd/- Sd/ (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 30th December, 2024 n.p. 6 ITA No. 303/Coch/2024 Mr. Thomas ad Annamma Kottooparampil Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "