SOCIETY FOR BETTERMENT OF EDUCATION MIDNAPORE,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s jurisdiction for granting registration under Section 12AA is limited to verifying the objects and genuineness of the activities, not the taxability of past income. The CIT(E) should not have rejected the application based on the society's failure to pay taxes voluntarily.
What were the facts?
The assessee society applied for registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application, citing the society's surplus funds and its failure to pay taxes voluntarily, despite acknowledging its charitable objects.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AA based on the society's surplus funds and failure to pay taxes voluntarily, rather than solely on the genuineness of its objects and activities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee society against the order of Ld. CIT(E), Kolkata dated 28.03.2018 denying registration u/s. 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee society came into existence vide Memorandum of Association dated 03.05.1975. The society filed application in Form 10AA for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act on 01.09.2017. The Ld. CIT(E) during the hearing took note of the fact that the assessee society was having surplus fund in the past five years from 2012-13 to 2016-17 and taking note that since assessee’s gross receipt was more than Rs. 1 cr. it was not eligible to claim u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. According to the Ld. CIT(E), even though the assessee society having surplus amount they have not paid the taxes voluntarily. Even though the Ld. CIT(E) acknowledged the fact that assessee society’s object falls under the ambit of sec. 2(15) of the Act and it runs an educational
2 Society For Betterment of Education Midnapore institution, the genuineness of its activities could not be substantiated because it did not pay taxes because it did not enjoy registration u/s. 12AA or 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, therefore, the Ld. CIT(E) was pleased to reject registration u/s. 12AA of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is before us.
We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Since facts stated above are not disputed, the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. Though the Ld. CIT(E) acknowledges the fact that the assessee society’s objectives fall under the ambit of sec. 2(15) of the Act and it runs an educational institution, he was not convinced to grant registration u/s. 12AA of the Act on the aforesaid reasons stated herein above. However we cannot countenance the action of the Ld. CIT(E) since we are of the opinion that so far as grant of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT(E)’s jurisdiction is only to verify the objects of the Institution/Trust/society and look into the genuineness of the activities, meaning thereby that he has to satisfy himself that the objects are charitable in nature and the activities being carried on or to be carried on are genuine, meaning thereby that they are in consonance for achieving the charitable object and nothing else. The Ld. CIT(E) while discharging his duty for grant of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act has to restrict himself in the field which we have stated above.
We note that the Ld. CIT(E) should have examined the genuineness of the society and its activities. There was no material to show that the assessee society was not genuine or that its activities were not as professed in the Memorandum of Association. There was no finding that the assessee society was a sham society. Since the primary object of the assessee/society was to give education and the objective is charitable in nature as specified in sec. 2(15) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) should have exercised his jurisdiction well within the area specified above. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter back to his file to consider the application for registration of the assessee society in the light of the aforesaid observation. The question as to whether the past income of the assessee society is leviable to tax is the lookout of the AO of the assessee and is not the issue before ld CIT(E). At the cost of repetition, we state the 3 Society For Betterment of Education Midnapore ld CIT(E) while considering the application of a society for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act has to verify the objects of the Institution/Trust/society and look into the genuineness of the activities, meaning thereby that he has to satisfy himself that the objects are charitable in nature and the activities being carried on or to be carried on are genuine, meaning thereby that they are in consonance for achieving the charitable object and nothing else. The Ld. CIT(E) while discharging his duty for grant of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act has to restrict himself in the field which we have stated above.It has to be remembered that if the assessee society has surplus or any income has escaped assessment there are sufficient power vested with the department to tax the assessee society as per law and in accordance to law. With the aforesaid observation, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication of the application for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 14th September, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. Saini) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : 14th September, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Society For Betterment of Education Midnapore of Sepoy Bazar, Midnapore Sadar, Paschim Midnapore-721101. 2 Respondent – CIT(E), Kolkata
3. DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026