JAIN SWETAMBAR TERAPANTHI SHAIKSHANIK SANSKRUTIK SAMAJIK AND SEVAHAVI SANSTHA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPT), PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune dated 31.01.2020 passed u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) denying the approval of the appellant trust u/s 80G of the Act.

Briefly the facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is a society registered under the Bombay Public Act, 1950. The appellant was formed with the following objects :- “(i) To set-up and promote education to girls, poors, orphans, child, elderly persons etc; (ii) To promote sports of various kinds; (iii) To provide training for self employment and self dependence to poor women, widow and needy persons; (iv) To set-up and promote elderly homes and organise medical camps; (v) To set-up, promote and facilitate libraries; (vi) To provide medical assistance to poor and weaker section of the society, set-up and promote the dispensaries, diagnostic centres, medical centres, etc; (vii) To provide relief to the poor and persons of weaker section.” 3. The appellant trust was duly registered u/s 12AA of the Act on 12.02.2015, subsequently, the appellant trust made an application in Form 10G for grant of approval under the provisions of section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. On receipt of the said application, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had called for certain information through ITBA portal and the same was duly furnished by the appellant society. On verification of the details filed by the appellant society, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had come to the conclusion that the appellant society had applied more than 5% of its income during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration towards religious purposes. Accordingly, the approval was denied invoking the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 31.01.2020. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the appellant society is before us in the present appeal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR took us through the information filed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had wrongly come to a conclusion that more than 5% of its income was spent towards religious purposes. He submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had considered wrong heads of expenditure, while coming to such conclusion. In