MUMBAI WATERFRONTS CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant trust moved an application for the registration u/s. 12A of the Act in the prescribed From No.10A on 28.03.2012. The trust has been constituted by a Trust Deed on 10.01.2010 and was registered with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai on 13.04.2010. One of the trustees, Shri P.K.Das, an Architect by profession is a proprietor of M/s.P.K.Das & Associates (Planners and Architects). The trust has been formed inter alia to carry out or support research studies, documentation of various waterfronts, to conduct dialogues and joint programmes with various other organizations having interest in urban development issues of Mumbai and all parts of India, to conduct seminars, workshops and conferences on matters relating to urban development and more particularly of issues pertaining to development and research on waterfronts and water bodies of Mumbai and other parts of India etc. As per the object clause, the collaboration and joint activities may include research studies, conferences, documentation, preparing development plans and proposals. The applicant has stated that trust is carrying out some of the projects like putting up of Bandra stand, project at Carter Road Bandra, improvement of the surrounding of Gateway of India, Juhu Beach, Dadar Prabhadevi beach, cleaning and desilting of Mithi river, beautification of Malad creek etc. The A.Y.2012-13 applicant also furnished a publication titled “open Mumbai”. Thereafter, the authority considered the matter and rejected the application of the appellant u/s.12AA(1)(b) read with section 12A of the Act. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the present appeal before us.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The learned representative of the appellant has argued that the authority has rejected the application on wrong notions specifically when the activities of the trust were not found against the object and the activity of the trust was genuine one. On appraisal of the order in question it came into the notice that the authority after examining of the record observed that the trust did not raise any income and incurred any expenditure for the financial year 2009-10 and 2010-11. In the financial year 2011-12, the trust received the donation to the tune of Rs.20,16,740/- and incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs.23,51,659/- toward organization of “open Mumbai” exhibition at the National Gallery of Modern Art in March, 2012. The appellant received donation of Rs.9,77,940/- from Adani Enterprises Ltd. but the same was not found as donation because it was paid to Shri P.K.Das one of the trustee but this amount was added to the account of the trust. Secondly the appellant did not submitted any proposal / projects /plans to the local authorities in accordance with its A.Y.2012-13 object. Observing non justifiable action of the authority, we are of the view that the rejection of registration on the above said grounds is not justifiable. Merely, non receipt of income and to not to incur any expenditure in the Financial year 2009-10 and 2010-11 are not the good ground to reject the registration. It can not be tantamount to be illegal or contrary to the object of the Trust. The receipt of the donation to the tune of Rs.20,16,740/- for the F.Y. 2011-12 and expenditure of Rs.23,51,659/- and further received donation of Rs.9,77,940/- from M/s.Adani Enterprises Ltd. nowhere leads to the the circumastances to consider the object as ingenuine. The order nowhere speaks about the ingenuine activity of the trust and also nowhere speaks about the facts that the specific work was executing by the Trust contrary to the object of the Trust. The satisfaction of the authority should be based on the some cogent and convincing reasons on records. However, at the time of arguments the representative of the assessee produced the list of project which has been mentioned below:-

The Port Trust Garden 24. Mahim Nature Park 25. Veer Jijamata Udyan L) RAILWAY STATIONS (PROPOSED): 26. Khar Station 27. Dadar Railway Station

In view of the above said circumstances we are of the view that the DIT(E) has passed the order in question wrongly and illegally which is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, we set aside the order in question and direct the concerned authority to reconsider the application of the appellant in accordance with law.

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed.