YASH SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

The appellant-trust was duly holding a Certificate under Section 80G of the Act prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2021. The appellant-trust was granted provisional approval and eventually applied in Form 10AB seeking final approval under Section 80G of the Act.

The learned CIT (Exemptions) has found that the application was not complete in all respects and was filed without the required documents. The learned CIT

We have heard parties. Perused record.

It is submitted by the learned AR that the delay was beyond the control of the appellant-trust and, in any case, was required to be condoned. Insofar as the investments in mutual funds and shares are concerned, it is contended that the same were received as donation in 1981 and have been held as corpus. Subsequent acquisition of rights and bonus shares was inextricably linked with the donation of shares forming part of the corpus and cannot be treated as fresh investment. It is pointed out that the learned CIT (Exemptions) was in error in holding that the investments made in 1993 and 1997 were in modes other than as provided in Section 11(5) of the Act. It is submitted that, in any case, learned CIT (Exemptions) has not examined the application on merits, as to the nature of the activities, carried out by the appellant-trust.

The learned DR has supported the impugned order.

The appellant-trust is incorporated in the year 1970 and is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The appellant-trust is also registered under Section 12A of the Act. The main activities of the appellant-trust are stated to be medical and educational. The appellant-trust is running a hospital at Nashik since 1995 in the name of Sujata Birla Hospital and Medical Research Centre. The appellant-trust is also running a charitably dispensary at C.P. Tank, Mumbai. Considering the ground as made out, we find that a case for condonation of delay was made out and, therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the application.

A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the other ground on which the application is rejected is violation of Section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the Act. We find that the learned CIT (Exemptions) has not examined the nature of the activities undertaken by the appellant-trust, which was a relevant aspect for considering the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The learned CIT (Exemptions) has noted that the appellant-trust had acquired the shares in 1981 and the subsequent accretion is on account of rights and bonus shares. The rights shares have been acquired in the year 1992, 1993 and 1997. The question whether the

We, therefore, allow the appeal. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the appellant-trust in Form 10AB of the Act is restored to the file of the learned CIT (Exemptions) for deciding it afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.