KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST,KUTCH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

The submission/explanation of the assessee is considered by the CIT(Exemption) but the same is not found acceptable for the below mentioned reasons. It has been submitted by the assessee that as per first para of trust deed the settlor of the trust, Mr. Devansh Sandeep Khandelwal, has expressed his feelings while creating of the trust as under. "This trust is for the purpose of establishing without discrimination caste, creed and religion for the benefit of all people, cows, help and other Jivdaya works mainly in Kutch and all over India. In his submission, assessee stated before learned CIT (E ) that main objects of the trust is to give food to the poor persons, help the poor persons in various ways and the trust is created for the benefit of all people, public in 3 | P a g e KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST, KUTCH - 370240 general, without any discrimination of caste and creed, and to maintain cow gausala, and to provide grass and water to cow and to support Jivdaya.

However, ld. CIT(E ) rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that objectives of the trust are confined towards service to animals and the application of fund of Rs. 1,61,700/- regarding blanket distribution is not in consonance to the objectives of the trust. Regarding the place from where Gaushala is being run, the assessee has furnished a copy of rent agreement dated 02.03.2022, however, from the perusal of the rent agreement, it was observed that as per the agreement the rent for office place was fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per month. It has been observed by ld. CIT( E) that cattle food was purchased only during the period 24.10.2022 to 20.11.2022 via two bills. However, the assessee has not furnished any details/documentary evidences regarding the place of operation i.e. Gaushala, quantitative details of the cattle and details of cattle food used during the period 01.04.2022 to 23.10.2022 and after 20.11.2022. The ld. CIT(E ) also relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Ujjain Vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat Civil Appeal No, 2492 of 2014, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while adjudicating similar provisions u/s. 12AA of the Act has held as under:

Aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before us.

Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee, vehemently, argued that the main objects of the trust is to help the needy people, to maintain old aged cows and to provide medical services for the benefit of the cows and arrange for their food and fodder and water for cows and other animal protection and all kind of activities related to their assistance.This Charitable Trust is an animal welfare organization that provides medical care to owned domestic cow and stray animals. Apart from this, the trust has other objects like to give food to the poor persons, assistance to the poor persons in various ways like blanket distribution in winter to the poor persons, which comes in the definition of general welfare. The ld. Counsel further stated that the trust is also created for the benefit of all people, public in general, without any discrimination of caste and creed, therefore, ld. Counsel contended that in the interest of justice and fair play, the registration should be granted to the assessee- trust.

On the other hand, learned DR for the Revenue, submitted that assessee-trust has failed to prove the genuineness of the activities carried by the trust. The objective of the trust is to serve cows/old cows, however, assessee has failed to provide the address of the Gaushala. No expenses have been incurred by assessee- trust for Gaushala. The details of cattle food has been furnished by the assessee partly, which is not sufficient.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ( in is allowed for statistical purposes.

We have heard both the parties. Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that Tribunal has power to condone the delay, in filing the application. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue relied on the findings of the ld.CIT(E).We note that Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT -Surat in the case of Vananchal Kelavani Trust, vide Nos.728/SRT/2023, on similar and identical facts had condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (E ) for fresh adjudication. The findings of the Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced below.

Thus, in the Circular No.8/2022 dated 31.03.2022, cited above, there is mention about Section 80G of the Act (in form No. 10AB) for registration or approval and extended date is mentioned as 30.09.2022. However, in the latest Circular No.6/2023 dated 24.05.2023, the CBDT did not clarify or did not mention about the extension of the time limit for Section 80G (5) of the Act, (in form No. 10AB). Therefore in the situation, it is difficult to interpret clause (iii) the 3rd proviso of Section 80G(5) of the Act, which states as follows: “where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier.” Therefore, it is undue hardship to the assessee, as the CBDT, in the latest Circular No.6/2023 dated 24.05.2023, about application for registration or approval under Section 80G, in form No. 10AB, did not mention the extended period. Thus, we find merit in the submission of ld Counsel to the effect that assessee is an old trust, which had registered on 29.11.2001 and commenced its activities from 2001, therefore, it is impossible to file the application u/s 80G(5) (iii) of the Act, “within six months of commencement of its activities’ as stated in above clause (iii) of 3rd proviso of section 80G(5) of the Act. Besides, as per circular No.8/2022 of CBDT dated 31.03.2022, the extended time is up to 30.09.2022, however, the assessee filed Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) (iii) on 24.02.2023, therefore, application filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(E) is delayed by 147 days (approx.), and hence ld CIT(E) rejected application of assessee in Form No.10AB, u/s 80G(5) (iii) of the Act, as not maintainable and also cancelled the provisional approval granted in Form No.10AC, under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80 G of the Act.

If we agree with the interpretation of the ld.CIT(E), then say a trust which was formed in the year 2000, performed charitable activities since 2000, but did not applied for registration u/s.80G, the said trust will never be able to apply for registration now. This in our opinion is not the intention of the legislation. This interpretation leads to absurd situation. 11.1 In this context, we will like to refer to observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghase(supra), where in Hon’ble SC observed as under : Quote, “It is a well-recognised rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided. There are many situations where the construction suggested on behalf of the revenue would lead to a wholly unreasonable result which could never have been intended by the Legislature. Take, for example, a case where A agrees to sell his property to B for a certain price and before the sale is completed pursuant to the agreement and it is quite well known that sometimes the completion of the sale may take place even a couple of years after the date of the agreement - the market price shoots up with the result that the market price prevailing on the date of the sale exceeds the agreed price at which the property is sold by more than 15 per cent of such agreed price. This is not at all an uncommon case in an economy of rising prices and in fact we would find in a large number of cases where the sale is completed more than a year or two after the date of the agreement that the market price prevailing on the date of the sale is very much more than the price at which the property is sold under the agreement. Can it be contended with any degree of fairness and justice that in such cases, where there is clearly no understatement of consideration in respect of the transfer and the transaction is perfectly honest and bona fide and, in fact, in fulfilment of a contractual obligation, the assessee who has sold the property should be liable to pay tax on capital gains which have not accrued or arisen to him. It would indeed be most harsh and inequitable to tax the assessee on income which has neither arisen to him nor is received by him, merely because he has carried out the contractual obligation undertaken by him. It is difficult to conceive of any rational reason why the Legislature should have thought it fit to impose liability to tax on an assessee who is bound by law to carry out his contractual obligation to sell the property at the agreed price and honestly carries out such contractual obligation. It would indeed be strange if obedience to the law should attract the levy of tax on income which has neither arisen to the assessee nor has been received by him. If we may take another illustration, let us consider a case where A sells his property to B with a stipulation that after sometime, which may be a couple of years or more, he shall resell the property to A for the same price. Could it be contended in such a case that when B transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more than 15 per cent. Many other similar situations can be contemplated where it would be absurd and unreasonable to apply section 52(2) according to its strict literal construction. We must, therefore, eschew literalness in the interpretation of section 52(2) and try to arrive at an interpretation which avoids this absurdity and mischief and makes the provision rational and sensible, unless of course, our hands are tied and we cannot find any escape from the tyranny of the literal interpretation. It is now a well-settled rule of construction that where 11 | P a g e KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST, KUTCH - 370240 the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court may modify the language used by the Legislature or even 'do some violence" to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction -” Unquote. 11.2 Thus, as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the statutory provision shall be interpreted in such a way to avoid absurdity. In this case to avoid the absurdity as discussed by us in earlier paragraph, we are of the opinion that the words, “within six months of commencement of its activities” has to be interpreted that it applies for those trusts/institutions which have not started charitable activities at the time of obtaining Provisional registration, and not for those trust/institutions which have already started charitable activities before obtaining Provisional Registration. We derive the strength from the Speech of Hon’ble Finance Minister and the Memorandum of Finance Bill 2020. 11.3 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Assessee Trust had applied for registration within the time allowed under the Act. Hence, the application of the assessee is valid and maintainable.

Even otherwise, the Provisional Approval is uptoA.Y.2025-26, and it can be cancelled by the ld.CIT(E) only on the specific violations by the assessee. However, in this case the ld.CIT(E) has not mentioned about any violation by the Assessee. Therefore, even on this ground the rejection is not sustainable.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Since we have set aside to Ld.CIT(E), we do not intend to adjudicate each ground separately.”

In the above circumstances, it seems to us that the Tribunal has acted judicially, taking note of all the facts and circumstances including probabilities of the case. In EsthuriAswathiah v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 478 (SC), the Supreme Court outlined the duties of the Tribunal in the following words: - "The function of the Tribunal in hearing an appeal is purely judicial. It is under a duty to decide all questions of fact and law raised in the appeal before it: for that purpose it must consider whether on the materials relied upon by the assessee his plea is made out. Conclusive proof of the claim is not predicated: the Tribunal may act upon probabilities, and presumptions may supply gaps in the evidence which may not, on account of delay or the nature of the transactions or for other reasons, be supplied from independent sources. But the Tribunal cannot make arbitrary decisions: it cannot found its judgment on conjectures, surmises or speculation. Between the claims of the public revenue and of the taxpayers, the Tribunal must maintain a judicial balance." In Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 (SC) the very same Bench of three judges of the Supreme Court again observed as under: - 13 | P a g e KRUPA VILAS GAU SEVA TRUST, KUTCH - 370240 "The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performs a judicial function under the Indian Income-tax Act: it is invested with authority to determine finally all questions of fact. The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law ......................................The Tribunal was undoubtedly competent to disagree with the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But in proceeding to do so, the Tribunal had to act judicially, i.e., to consider all the evidence in favour of and against the assessee. An order recorded on a review of only a part of the evidence and ignoring the remaining evidence cannot be regarded as conclusively determining the questions of fact raised before the Tribunal."

That takes us to the question as to whether in condoning the delay the Tribunal committed any error of law or illegality. There is a wealth of judicial literature on the subject of condonation of delay and most of the cases have arisen under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The principles that are to be applied are, however, no different whenever the question of condonation of delay comes up for consideration under other statutes. In the oft quoted judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 it was observed as follows: - "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on the merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy."

The following general principles were laid down and it is these principles which guide the Court in approaching the question of condonation of delay: - "And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 the Supreme Court again reiterated the approach. In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002] 3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on the dock and he also admitted his fault, though he tried to shift the blame to his employee whose whereabouts were never known. Even in his bail application he had confessed to his role in the alleged irregularities and illegalities. There has been no want of bona fides on the part of the assessee, nor did it fail to take immediate action once it was apprised of the irregularities in its affairs by M. P. Mansinghka Trust of Mumbai. In these circumstances, we are unable to say that the Tribunal committed an error in condoning the delay.

On the question of perversity of the decision of the Tribunal we may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28. In that judgment, it was noted that only a question of law can be referred for decision of the Court and the decision of the Tribunal on a question of fact can be challenged only if it is not supported by any evidence, or is unreasonable or perverse. The following pithy observations of T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar, J. speaking for the Court are relevant: - " ....................... The point for decision is whether there arises out of the order of the Tribunal any question which can be the subject of reference under section 66 (1) of the Act Under that section, it is only a question of law that can be referred for decision of the Court, and it is impossible to argue that the conclusion of the Tribunal is anything but one of fact. It has been held on the corresponding provisions in the English Income-tax statutes that a finding on a question of fact is open to attack as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence, or if it is unreasonable and perverse, but that where there is evidence to consider, the decision of the Tribunal is final even though the Court might not, on the materials, have come to the same conclusion if it had the power to substitute its own judgment. In Great Western Railway Co. v. Bater (1), Lord Atkinson observed: "Their (Commissioners') determinations of questions of pure fact are not to be disturbed, any more than are the findings of a jury, unless it should appear that there was no evidence before them upon which they, as reasonable men, could come to the conclusion to which they have come: and this, even though the Court of Review would on the evidence have come to a conclusion entirely different from theirs."

This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 where it was held that "if there is some evidence to support the finding recorded by the Tribunal, even if it appears to the High Court that on re-appreciation of the evidence, it might arrive at a conclusion different from that of the Tribunal" the High Court has no power to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. These decisions were applied by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Baba Avtar Singh[1972] 83 ITR 738 where it was observed as under: - "The submission made by Mr. Sharma does not appear to us to be correct. It is well- settled that the court cannot set aside the Tribunal's finding of fact if there is some evidence to support that finding even though the court itself might have come to a different conclusion upon the evidence."

The aforesaid principles govern the order of the Tribunal and the approach to be adopted by us in the present case. At best, what can be argued by the Revenue is only that another view was possible to be taken by the Tribunal and this Court should prefer the alternative view on the same facts and evidence and discard the Tribunal's view. Obviously the argument cannot be upheld, having regard to the above judgments.

For the above reasons we answer the substantial questions of law framed in 773 and 775 of 2010 in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Consequently the sole substantial question of law framed by us in 1101, 1103, 1104, 1112 and 1124 of 2010 is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The C.M. Application is disposed of. The appeals of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.”

Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission (supra), wherein the delay in filing application for registration u/s 12A, was allowable / condoned, hence, we condone the delay in filing Form10AB, u/s 80G(5), and remit the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(E) with the direction to decide the application of assessee, in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file details and documents, before ld CIT(E), as and when, required by ld CIT(E). For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed.”