VAIBHAGIYA PRASHASKIYA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHA,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1637/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 February 20206 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that training government employees indirectly benefits the public and that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application. The Tribunal directed the CIT (Exemption) to issue the registration certificate.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vibhagiya Prashaskiya Prashikshan Sanstha, applied for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (Exemption) rejected the application, stating the trust's activities were not for the benefit of the public at large and that it aimed to enhance its financial capacity.

What were the issues?

Whether training government employees constitutes an activity for the advancement of general public utility and if the trust fulfills the conditions for registration under Section 12AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 2(15),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bhalgat
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Hearing: 12.02.2020Pronounced: 12.02.2020

आदेश / ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM:

1.

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) Pune dated 31.08.2019 passed u/s.12AA(1)(b) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) as per the following grounds of appeal on record:

“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of I.T (E) Pune is not justified in rejecting the application for registration when the trust fulfills the conditions of section 2(15), 11, 12AA. The registration may please be accorded.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of I.T (E) Pune is not justified in rejecting the application for registration under section 12AA of the IT Act when the Trust exists solely for education and advancement of general public utility and not for profit. The trust may please be registered under section 12AA.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of I.T (E) Pune is not justified in rejecting the application on the presumption that the activities of the trust are not genuine. The order may be cancelled and registration be granted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of I.T (E) Pune is not justified when the trust is disseminating training which ultimately benefited to the public at large. The registration may be granted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.”

2.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Trust is registered under BPT Act, 1950 with registration number F/9763/NASHIK dated 30.04.2008. The assessee trust E-filed Form 10A for registration of the trust u/s.12A of the Act on 06.02.2019. The trust was created on 30.04.2008 and it is registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 on 30.04.2008. The Ld. AR further submitted that the trust is also registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 01.03.2008. The Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the trust exists solely for education and advancement of general public utility and not for profit and activities of the trust are genuine. The Ld. AR also submitted that the trust is disseminating training which ultimately benefited to the public at large.

2.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee also submitted that the object of training to state government employees will benefit at large and earlier rejection order was on account of non compliance by the trust and stressed upon the fact that Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development of Administration, Pune (Yashada) which is father trust for the state government employees training institute has been issued 12A of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) rejected the said application of the assessee as there is no fresh facts, was brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(Exemption) other than the reasons mentioned for rejection order passed by the Office on 27.12.2012 wherein it was held that the assessee is not doing any general charitable activities of public utility and was into training Departmental Officers and Staff of the State Revenue Department.

3. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has placed strong reliance on the orders of the lower Authorities.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(Exemption) rejected the registration merely on the ground of non furnishing of documents/information by the assessee to study the bona-fides of the objects of the assessee‟s Trust. We further find that the assessee responded to the queries raised by the Ld.CIT(Exemption) and uploaded the requisite documents/information on the ITBA portal of the Department. Despite reply from the assessee side, Ld. CIT (Exemption) could not make use of the same for one reason or others. In the order of Ld. CIT(Exemption) dated 31.08.2019, it was categorically held that the assessee failed to submit any material/facts to deviate from the earlier decision in rejecting the application for registration u/s.12AA of the Act. The relevant contents in Para 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of Ld. CIT (Exemption)‟s order are extracted hereunder:-

“5.2 The submission of the appellant has been considered. First of all the basis object of the trust i.e. training to the employees itself strictly restricts the benefit to a specific group of persons and not public at large. Further, one of the object of the trust is to take necessary steps for financial development of the trust. The trust carries out various training etc activities for the State govt. Officers/staff and get grants for the same. These training programs are not open to all but for the specific persons i.e. Govt. Employee only and as mentioned above, as per one of the objects of the trust, the applicant also expects to enhance its financial capacity through such activity. Therefore it cannot at all be termed as an activity for the benefit of public at large. 5.3 As regards the contention of the applicant that earlier rejection order dated 09.01.2013 was on account of non compliance such contention is totally ill founded. The reason for rejection- as prescribed in the earlier paragraph of this order itself shows that the relevant authority has also discussed the merits of the case in detail. Further the applicant has not submitted any material/facts now to require the undersigned to deviate from the observations made in the earlier rejection order dated 09.01.2013. 5.4 Lastly as regards the contention of the applicant regarding registration u/s.12A of the Act, to Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development of Administration Pune (Yashada) which is stated to be father trust for the state government employee training institute, it is nowhere mentioned in the Govt. Of Maharashtra notification dated 14.10.2013 through which the trust came into existence that the said Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration Pune is the father trust of the applicant. Further, the applicant has not submitted any details of facts and circumstances which were before the relevant authority at the time of passing of the said order. Further, granting of registration u/s.12A to any other institute cannot be the basis for granting such registration to the applicant also.”

5.

On hearing both the sides and perusing the order of the CIT (Exemption), we find that it is a case of compliance by the assessee by uploading successfully of the documents required for adjudication of the application for registration. Further we notice that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) had already granted registration to Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration, Pune (Yashada) way back in 2002 with the same/similar objects as that of the assessee. We are also of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) that the registration cannot be granted for the assessee as it is involved in imparting the training to the employees of the state govt, is incorrect and contrary to the law. For this purposes, we may rely upon the decision of CIT Vs. Andhra Pradesh Police Welfare Society 148 ITR 287 (Andhra Pradesh) and Water and land Management Training Research Institute DIT 40 ITR (Trib.) and DIT Vs. National Safely Counsel 305 ITR 257. In all these decisions, it was held that the object of general public utility is wider and larger object which encompasses the object like imparting the training to the Govt employees working in various Department and Revenue. The Govt. Employees working with state govt. belongs to various state of the society and they are not restricted to one religion, caste or creed. If there is an improvement in their workmanship and the managerial skill then it will indirectly benefit the public and also to the Government. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to get relief claimed before us and accordingly, we direct the Ld. CIT(Exemption) to issue the registration certificate from the date of application u/s.12AA of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 12th day of February, 2020.

Sd/- Sd/- D. KARUNAKARA RAO LALIET KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 12th February, 2020. SB आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2.

3.

The CIT(Exemption), Pune.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →