Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee trust directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune dated 30.05.2019 passed u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) denying the approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act.
The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On facts of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Pune has erred in rejecting the application for grant of approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 30.05.2019.
2. On facts of the case, the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the ld. CIT(Exemptions), Pune rejecting the application of the appellant trust is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law and, therefore, deserve to be cancelled by allowing the approval to the appellant trust.
The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal
, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.
4. Any other equitable and just order that may be deemed fit and proper by your honour may please be passed in the matter.”
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :- Shree Veeralayam Jain Ahinsa Tirth is a trust registered the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 on 23.12.2014. The appellant trust was formed with the following objects :- (i) Health Relief : To create and maintain animal sheds wherein the needy animals can be taken care of and maintained. (ii) Medical Relief : To run veterinary hospitals, dispensaries or pathological laboratories providing medical relief of the animals and birds. (iii) Education : To create an awareness in public at large about the various aspects of education regarding animals, birds and other all creatures. (iv) Social : To save cows, bulles, baffalosetc from slaughtering.
4. The appellant trust was granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act vide order dated 25.09.2018 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune. Subsequently, the assessee trust had made an application in Form 10G for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. On receipt of the said application, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune had called for certain clarification/information which was duly complied with by the appellant trust. However, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) based on the report submitted by the ITO(E)-1, Pune had come to know that the appellant trust is also being operated from the same premises from which Veeralayam Trust and Shri Mahavir Research Jain Foundation 3 are being operated. Further, he had come to know that the appellant trust is maintaining Goshala and animals in the premises of said appellant trust. According to him, based on this information, it was not clear to him as to the ownership of the premises from where the appellant trust was operating. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) further observed that since no audit of the accounts of the appellant trust have been carried out, the accounts of the trust are not reliable and concluded that the genuineness of the charitable activities claimed to be carried out was not established. Based on this finding, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), rejected the grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 30.05.2019.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal.
Before us, the ld. Counsel submits that the appellant trust continues to enjoy the registration u/s 12AA of the Act, therefore, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had clearly erred to come to the conclusion that the activities of the appellant trust are not genuine. She further submitted that all the conditions stipulated under the provisions of clause (vi) of section 80G(5) stand fulfilled by the assessee and the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) cannot travel beyond the conditions stipulated u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act r.w. Rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ for short) at the time of grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act.
On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR relied on the impugned order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present case relates to grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi)
4 of the Act. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had denied the grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act solely on the following grounds :-
(i) The premises from which the appellant trust is operated are not owned by the appellant trust/shared along with other trusts. (ii) The accounts of the appellant trust are not reliable since accounts are not audited. Consequently, he had come to the conclusion that the genuineness of the activities of the trust was not established by the appellant.
9. The validity of reasoning of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is required to be tested on the touchstone of the conditions prescribed u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act r.w. Rule 11AA of the Rules. On mere reading of the provisions of clause (vi) of section 80G(5) of the Act r.w. Rule 11AA of the Rules, it is clearly evident that the provisions of section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act nowhere stipulate that in order to be eligible for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act, the premises from which the appellant trust is operated, should be owned by the appellant trust. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) cannot introduce any new condition nor stipulate a new condition which is not prescribed under the provisions of the Statute. It is not the case of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) that the appellant trust had failed to fulfil any of the conditions prescribed u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act r.w. Rule 11AA of the Rules. The findings of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) that since the accounts of the trust are not audited the activities of trust are not genuine, is not based on any material nor it is possible to come to such conclusion by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in view of the undisputed fact that the appellant trust still continues to enjoy the registration u/s 12AA of the