GAYATRI PARIVAR RACHNATMAK TRUST DEVALA,,TAPI vs. THE CIT ( EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal

We have heard the submission of ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental representative (CIT-DR) and have seen the order of Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application on the ground that there is no clause related to the dissolution of trust and that assessee has not furnished the evidence about the activities undertaken by the assessee. The ld.AR submits that the assessee trust is registered under Bombay Public Trust Act 1950. In case, if any provision is not enacted in the constitution of the Trust, suo moto model provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act will be applicable. The Gayatri Parivar Rachnatmak Trust Devala Vs. CIT(E), provision regarding the dissolution are covered under point no.11 of Trust Deed, which directs to transfer all movable and immovable properties to be transferred to the another trust with similar object. Thus, the settler of the trust has no right to claim amount or property of trust of dissolution of the trust. If any trust is unable to work for the object of the trust, the entire amount, if any shall transfer to another chargeable trust under the authority of charity commissioner.

It was submitted that the ld.CIT(E) before rejecting the registration application has not given any opportunity to rectify or explain the facts. The ld.AR submits that assessee is working in a remote area at Post Devala, Tal-Nizr, Dist- Tapi, Gujarat – 394370. The ld.AR further submitted that details of activities carried out by trust were furnished with the supporting evidence. The ld.CIT(E) failed to specify any deficiency in the documents about the activities. No such show cause notice that activities undertaking by assessee are insufficient or not in accordance with the object of the trust, was given to the assessee. The ld.AR further submits that he is filing brief Note of activities carried out by the assessee since its inception. The assessee was unable to do large scale of activities in absence of registration under section 12AA of the Act, though all activities under taken by assessee are charitable and in accordance of the object of the trust. The assessee in its brief note has explained that organized tree Gayatri Parivar Rachnatmak Trust Devala Vs. CIT(E), plantation in every monsoon in and around Village Devala. The assessee organized village cleaning programs, cleanness of roads, water bodies, sewage in and around the village, photographs of such activities are attached, the assessee organized various activities of development of school going children for moral values and ethical practice. The assessee also furnished copy of last three years audit report. The assessee has established a Gayatri S. Vidyalaya and spent more than Rs.5.00 lakhs up to 31.03.2020. The assessee also undertake the Adult education programme to eradicate illiteracy. The ld.AR submits that he has furnished numerous evidence to show that assessee carried out activity in accordance with object of the trust. The ld.AR on the basis of aforesaid submission submitted that the ld.CIT(E) may be directed to reconsider the issue afresh.

On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that the ld. CIT(E) rejected application of the assessee, as the assessee failed to furnish complete the details of genuineness of activities carried out by the assessee in accordance with object of the trust.

We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the order ld.CIT(E). We have noted that ld.CIT(E) rejected the application of assessee for registration under section 12AA of the Act on the ground that assessee failed to furnish the complete details about the genuineness of Gayatri Parivar Rachnatmak Trust Devala Vs. CIT(E), ITA No.2231/AHD/2015 activities undertaking by the assessee in pursuant of the object of the Trust. Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that in response to show cause notice dated 06.08.2015, the assessee furnished complete details including the activities of the Trust, the ld.CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee without specifying any deficiency in the evidence furnished by the assessee. No show cause notice before rejection, about the insufficiency of documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was served on the assessee. Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee has furnished the Note of details on the various activities carried out by the assessee since inception along with their documentary evidences. Considering the fact that application of the assessee was rejected in absence of complete details about the activities undertaken by the assessee, therefore we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(E) to reconsider the matter afresh and decide the application in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to provide complete details and evidence required by the ld.CIT(E) and not to make any delay in furnishing such evidence. In the result the grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.