ST. MICHAELS HIGH SCHOOL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

The assessee is a long-established public charitable institution engaged in imparting education through St. Michael’s High School, Mahim, Mumbai. The material placed before us shows that the institution was established in the year 1850 and has, since its inception, been devoted exclusively to the charitable object of providing primary and secondary education to students without any distinction of caste, creed, religion or social background. The institution is administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and functions under the religious jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bombay. It is duly registered as a public trust under the erstwhile Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950), has enjoyed registration under section 12A of the Act for several decades, was subsequently granted registration under the new regime

During the course of the proceedings, the learned CIT(E.) required the assessee to furnish, inter alia, a self-certified copy of the instrument of trust or Memorandum of Association in terms of Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee explained that it had never been constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association and submitted that, being a Catholic missionary educational institution, its internal governance was regulated in accordance with Canon Law while simultaneously remaining subject to the statutory framework governing public charitable trusts in the State of Maharashtra. The assessee further produced the application made before the Charity Commissioner in December 1955, the certificate of registration issued under the Bombay Public Trusts Act on 25.02.1956, together with other contemporaneous records evidencing its creation, establishment and continuous existence as a public charitable institution. The learned CIT(E.), however, held that these documents merely evidenced registration of the trust and could not be treated as documents evidencing its creation

Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the assessee is in appeal before us. At the outset, both the learned representatives fairly submitted that the issue arising for determination is substantially covered by the batch of appeals decided by this Bench on the same date in the cases of St. Joseph’s High School, St. Thomas High School, School of St. John the Evangelist, Fatima High School, St. Stanislaus High School, St. Stanislaus Institution, Roman Catholic School of St. Teresa’s and other similarly situated educational institutions administered by Catholic religious bodies. It was submitted that the impugned orders rest on the same reasoning, namely, that in the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association, renewal under section 12AB could not be granted notwithstanding the assessee’s long- standing registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and its uninterrupted recognition under the Income-tax Act. The principal question, therefore, is whether such a view can be sustained having regard to the statutory scheme of

The learned counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned orders and submitted that the learned CIT(E.) has declined renewal of registration by adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation of section 12AB of the Act read with Rule 17A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It was submitted that the assessee has been carrying on the charitable activity of imparting education since the year 1850 and has, throughout its existence, remained registered as a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act besides enjoying registration under section 12A, thereafter under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the assessee was never constituted under a separate written trust deed or Memorandum of Association and, therefore, its case is squarely governed by Rule 17A(2)(b), which specifically recognises institutions created or established otherwise than under an instrument. It was submitted that the application filed before the Charity Commissioner, the certificate of registration issued under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the continued recognition by the educational authorities, the registration granted under the Income-tax Act over several decades and the other contemporaneous records sufficiently establish the creation, establishment and continuous existence of the institution as

The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the reasoning adopted by the learned CIT(E.). It was submitted that production of the instrument creating the trust enables the competent authority to examine the charitable objects, the legal constitution of the institution and the fulfilment of the statutory requirements prescribed under section 12AB of the Act. According to the Revenue, the application submitted before the Charity Commissioner and the certificate of registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act merely establish the registration of the trust and

We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned orders and examined the material placed before us. On such examination, we find that the controversy involved in the present appeals is substantially the same as that considered by this Bench in the batch of appeals decided on the same date concerning similarly situated educational institutions administered by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bombay and other Catholic religious bodies. The statutory provisions involved, the basis on which the applications have been rejected, the documentary evidence produced by the assessee and the legal contentions advanced before us are materially identical. The Revenue has also not been able to point out any distinguishing feature, either on facts or in law, which would justify taking a view different from the one already adopted in the lead matters. We shall, therefore, examine the present appeals in the light of the principles laid down in those decisions while independently applying them to the facts of the present case.

On an independent consideration of the facts before us, we find that the assessee has been in existence since the year 1850 and has continuously carried on the charitable activity of imparting education. It has remained registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and has, for several decades, enjoyed registration under section 12A and thereafter under section 12AB, besides approval under section 80G of the Act.

In the lead judgment rendered in ITA Nos. 5646/Mum/2026 and 5849/Mum/2026, St. Joseph’s High School v. CIT(E.), this Bench has already examined the ambit of Rule 17A(2)(b), which specifically contemplates institutions created or established otherwise than under an instrument, and has held that where the existence, charitable objects and genuineness of activities are established through statutory records and other reliable contemporaneous material, renewal of registration cannot be refused merely because the institution was not constituted under a formal written trust deed. Since the statutory provisions, the documentary evidence and the controversy involved in the present appeals are substantially identical, we respectfully adopt the reasoning and conclusions recorded in the aforesaid lead

We also find merit in the contention of the assessee that the enquiry contemplated under section 12AB is directed towards examining the charitable character of the institution and the genuineness of its activities. Once these foundational requirements stand satisfied, and no adverse material has been brought on record suggesting any deviation from its declared charitable objects or any violation of law, renewal cannot be denied solely on account of the historical absence of a written constitutive instrument. Such an interpretation would not be in consonance with the scheme of section 12AB read with Rule 17A(2)(b).

Apart from reiterating the reasoning contained in the impugned orders, the Revenue has not been able to point out any factual or legal distinction which would justify a departure from the consistent view already taken by this Bench in the companion matters decided on the same date. The principle of judicial consistency requires that where the facts and the governing legal principles are identical, similarly situated assessees should ordinarily receive similar treatment. We, therefore, see no justification for taking a different view in the present appeals.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.