SAHYADRI WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ,KOLHAPUR MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, CIT EXEMPTION PUNE

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” �ायपीठ पुणेम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.639 & 640/PUN/2024 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : N.A. Sahyadri Wildlife V The Commissioner of Foundation, s Income Tax, Exemption, 237/5, Tarabai Park, Pune. Opp. To Golds Gym, Circuit House Road, Kolhapur, Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.CIT& Shri Keshari – CIT(DR) Date of hearing 30/07/2024 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune dated 05.03.2024 passed under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the assessee’s application filed in Form No.10AB for approval under section 80G(5) of the Act and rejecting assessee’s application for Registration u/sec.12AB of the

ITA Nos.639 & 640/PUN/2024 Sahyadri Wildlife Foundation, Kolhapur [A] Act. The assessee in ITA No.639/PUN/2024 has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. The learned CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts in denying the approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the two reasons that - (i) The activity carried on by the assessee as regards medical camp for staff of forest department is not an activity explicitly outlined within the Memorandum of Association (MOA). (ii) The application was not done within the time limit allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. While doing so, the learned CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that - (i) activity of medical camp falls within ‘support, and contribute to the protection of wildlife’ (ii) Timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) should be treated as directory and not mandatory, (iii) delay in filing Form No. 10AB deserved to be condoned. 3. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is unjust, unfair and bad in law, as such needs to be set-aside and Ld. CIT(E) needs to be directed to grant approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act. 4. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed.” 5.

1.1 The assessee in ITA No.640/PUN/2024 has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(E) has erred in law and on facts in denying the approval u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the two reasons that - (i) The activity carried on by the assessee as regards medical camp for staff of forest department is not an activity explicitly outlined within the Memorandum of Association (MOA). (ii) The application was not done within the time limit allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. While doing so, the learned CIT(E) has failed to appreciate that - (i) activity of medical camp falls within ‘support, and contribute to the protection of wildlife’ (ii) Timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) should be treated as directory and not

ITA Nos.639 & 640/PUN/2024 Sahyadri Wildlife Foundation, Kolhapur [A] mandatory, (iii) delay in filing Form No. 10AB deserved to be condoned. 3. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is unjust, unfair and bad in law, as such needs to be set-aside and Ld. CIT(E) needs to be directed to grant approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act. 4. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed.” 5. 2. At the outset of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On earlier hearing i.e. 11.07.2024 also no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has filed a paper book.

2.1 The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.CIT(Exemption).

Findings & Analysis : We first take up the appeal against 12AB i.e. ITA No.640/PUN/2024 :

ITA Nos.639 & 640/PUN/2024 Sahyadri Wildlife Foundation, Kolhapur [A] that assessee had conducted a medical camp for Forest Department Staff. But such medical camp is not as per the explicit objects of the assessee. Ld.CIT(E) has stated that though assessee has filed photographs of the medical camps, the assessee has failed to file any additional evidence regarding other activities. Therefore, ld.CIT(E) rejected the assessee’s application for Registration under 12AB of the Act.

3.1 Assessee filed a paperbook and certified that all the documents were filed before the Ld.CIT(E). On perusal of the paper book, at page 8 assessee has enclosed copy of certificate of incorporation. The assessee is a Section 8 Company duly registered with Registrar of Companies on 23.04.2021. The main objects of the assessee are as under : “3rd a.The main objects to be pursued by the company on its incorporation are: 1. To promote, support, contribute the activity of wild and animal protection, Forest conservation and protection, rehabilitation of wildlife and animals, Environment protection and sustainability, maintaining ecological balance, protection of flora and fauna, conservation and protection of rivers, Conservation and protection of other natural resources and research activity related to abovementioned activities and do all such other things necessary or incidental for conservation and protection of wildlife and Forest. b. Other lawful things as considered necessary for furtherance of the mainobject: 2. To provide, guide, education and to create awareness program

ITA Nos.639 & 640/PUN/2024 Sahyadri Wildlife Foundation, Kolhapur [A] in relation wild and animal protection and environment protection to in connection with main object of the organisation. 3. To purchase or otherwise acquire, assemble, install, construct, alter, equip, repair, remodel, maintain, enlarge, operate, work, manage, control, hold, own, lease, rent, charter, mortgage, sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any buildings and structures, telephones and other communication facilities, data processing system and facilities, machinery, apparatus, instruments, fixtures and appliances in so far as the same may appertain to or be useful in the conduct of objectives of the Company. 8. To support or to aid in establishment and association, institutions, funds, trusts, and conveniences calculated to benefit employees or ex-employees of the Company or dependants or relatives of such persons and to grant pensions, allowances, and to subscribe guarantee money for charitable or benevolent objects or for any exhibitions or for any public, general, or useful purpose. 9. To provide for the welfare of the employee or ex-employee of the Company.” 3.2 The ld.CIT(E) failed to verify and analyse the objects of the assessee. The ld.CIT(E) has not verified whether the objects of the assessee are charitable in nature as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act. Apparently, the Object Nos.8 & 9 are not charitable in nature as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act. To provide for the welfare of the employee or ex-employee of the company cannot be a charitable activity as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act. However, we have already observed that ld.CIT(E) failed to analyse the objects of the assessee. It is mandatory for the ld.CIT(E) to verify objects of the assessee.

ITA Nos.639 & 640/PUN/2024 Sahyadri Wildlife Foundation, Kolhapur [A] 3.3 Since ld.CIT(E) failed to verify objects of the assessee, the order ld.CIT(E) is set-aside to ld.CIT(E) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.640/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.639/PUN/2024 : 5. This is an appeal filed by the assessee rejecting assessee’s application for Registration u/sec.80G of the Act. The ld.CIT(E) observed that assessee’s application for Registration was filed beyond the statutory time limit. Ld.CIT(E) also observed that genuineness of the activities could not be verified and assessee does not have valid registration u/sec.12AB r.w.s.12A of the Act. In this case, we have set-aside the order u/sec.12AB of the Act for denovo adjudication to ld.CIT(E). As far as delay is concerned, the ITAT Pune in similar circumstances in the case of General Lab Foundation Vs. CIT, Exemption in ITA No.193/PUN/2024 dated 30.04.2024 has held that Application was filed within time.

ITA Nos.639 & 640/PUN/2024 Sahyadri Wildlife Foundation, Kolhapur [A] Respectfully following the same, assessee’s application for Registration u/sec.80G is treated to be filed in time. Since ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application on the ground that geniuses of the activities could not verified and assessee do not have Registration u/sed.12AB of the Act. Therefore, we set-aside the order u/sec.80G of the Act for denovo adjudication to ld.CIT(E). The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th July, 2024/ SGR*

ITA Nos.639 & 640/PUN/2024 Sahyadri Wildlife Foundation, Kolhapur [A] आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड�फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.