M/S DRIKUNG KAGYU BHUMANG JAMPALING MONASTERY CHAUNTRA,MANDI vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order under section 12AA(i)(b)(ii) dated 28/04/2017 by CIT ( Exemptions) Chandigarh on the following grounds :

“1. That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh is against law and facts on the file as much as he was not justified to reject the application filed in Form 10A seeking registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) gravely erred in rejecting the application without passing any speaking order.

ITA 968/CHD/2017 Page 2 of 3

foreign and domestic donations the applicant has failed to prove whether there has been any infraction ofFCRA regulations or not..” Accordingly, it was his limited prayer that the impugned order may be set aside back to the file of the CIT (Exemptions) with the direction to pass an order after considering the facts available on record, as the order passed in the peculiar circumstances cannot be said to be a speaking order. The AO while making the said prayer requested that the CIT (Exemptions) may be time bound to decide the same within a period of 6 months. 2.1 The Ld. CIT-DR relying upon the impugned order submitted that the same may be upheld. However in the face of the unambiguous submission of the assessee on record specific page 40 para 17 which appears to have escaped consideration of the CIT (Exemption) did not pose any serious objection to setting aside the order to the file of the CIT (Exemptions). No objections were also posed to the request of the assessee that the order be passed by the CIT (Exemptions) within a period of 6 months. 3. We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the order it is seen that the CIT (Exemptions) in the course of the hearing required the assessee to provide various details as set out in para 5 of his order. Considering the details made available, he show caused the assessee on 17/04/2017 to elaborate the explanation by way of evidences and considering the reply. The application of the assessee was rejected on various reasons including the reasoning given in sub para (i) of para 7 of his order holding that the application shows that the main activity of the society was involved in the construction of a Buddhist temple which according to the CIT ( Exemptions) could not be said to be charity in terms of sub Section (15) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act,1961. Apart from the said reasons, it is seen that various other reasons have also been given by the CIT (Exemptions) as set out in sub – para (iii) and sub – para (iv) of para 7 of his order. On the basis of these it was finally concluded as under : “8. In the instant case, given the above, there is no way, the genuineness of activities of the Society can be corroborated with the stated aims and objects and there is no rationale for registration to an entity which is in existence since 2005 and involved only in the activity of construction of a temple which is purely a religious activity. In the instant case both the ownership of property and the sources of funds that are claimed to have been utilized for building are not substantiated. The applicant did not ar.swer

ITA 968/CHD/2017 Page 3 of 3

specifically to the queries raised in this regard. The application under section 12A for grant of registration is accordingly rejected.” 4. In the light of the submissions of the parties before the Bench limiting ourselves to the limited prayer of the assessee made in the present proceedings, the impugned order is set aside back to the file of the CIT (Exemptions) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of 6 months of the receipt of this order after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. For the sake of completeness, we have addressed various findings given by the CIT (Exemptions) however, the correctness or the relevance of the various conclusions has not been addressed by us as in the light of the limited prayer of the assessee, the occasion to consider those did not arise. Said order was announced the at the time of hearing itself. 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04.04.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ( Dr.B.R.KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

‘Poonam’ Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR Asstt. Registrar ITAT,Chandigarh.