Vidhya Sikshaa Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul v. CIT, Madurai

ITA 1331/CHNY/2010 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 133121714 RSA 2010
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1331/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Vidhya Sikshaa Educational and Charitable Trust, Dindigul
Respondent CIT, Madurai
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 16-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 16-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 16-03-2011
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 12-08-2010
Judgment Text
AND IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA J.M. AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE AM .. I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDHYA SIKSHAA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST PODIKAMAN VADI VILLAGE SIDDAYANKOTTAI POST DINDIGUL DISTT. VS. THE C.I.T - II MADURAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUBBARAYAN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI TAPAS KUMAR DUTTA O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE AM IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT ASSAILS T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-II MADURAI WHEREBY HE REFUSED TO GRANT RE GISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT ]. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE REASONS CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR R EFUSING PAGE 2 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 REGISTRATION WAS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GR ANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 2. ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY SHRI SUBBARAYAN. TH E BENCH QUERIED SHRI SUBBARAYAN AS TO UNDER WHAT CAPACITY H E WAS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREUPON HE REPLIED THAT HE WAS APPEARING AS AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS A RETIRED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS DEFINED UNDER S UB-SECTION 288(1) OF THE ACT. QUOTING CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTI ON (1) OF SECTION 285 SHRI SUBBARAYAN SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS A PERSON WHO HAD PASSED THE ACCOUNTANCY EXAMINATION RECOGNIZED BY TH E CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO RU LE 50 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962 [IN SHORT THE RULES] WHICH SETS OUT THE ACCOUNTANCY EXAMINATIONS WHICH WERE RECOGNIZED. AC CORDING TO HIM SUB-RULE (4) OF RULE 50 CLEARLY MENTIONED THA T THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATIONS CONDUCTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTED TAXES WAS ONE OF THOSE EX AMINATIONS WHICH WERE RECOGNIZED AND HE HAVING PASSED SUCH AN EXAMINATION PAGE 3 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 WAS ELIGIBLE TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS AN A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 3. PER CONTRA THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT AS PER R ULE 54 OF THE RULES ANY PERSON WHO WISHED TO HAVE HIS NAME ENTER ED AS AN AUTHORIZED INCOME TAX PRACTITIONER IN THE REGISTER WAS OBLIGED TO APPLY TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER WITHIN WHOSE AREA O F JURISDICTION HE WAS PRACTICING. ACCORDING TO HIM SHRI SUBBARAY AN WAS YET TO OBTAIN SUCH REGISTRATION AS SPECIFIED IN RULE 55 OF THE RULES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO SEEN THE RELEVANT SECTIONS AND RULES. TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE WE REPRO DUCE SUB-SECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 288 OF THE ACT HEREUNDER: (1) ANY ASSESSEE WHO IS ENTITLED OR REQUIRED TO ATT END BEFORE ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY OR THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT OTHERWISE THAN WHEN REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 131 TO ATTEND PERSONALLY FOR EXAMINATION ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION MAY SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ATTEND BY AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. PAGE 4 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION 'AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE' MEANS A PERSON AUTHORISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING TO APPEAR ON HIS BEHALF BEING - (I) A PERSON RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER OR A PERSON REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE; OR (II) ANY OFFICER OF A SCHEDULED BANK WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A CURRENT ACCOUNT OR HAS OTHER REGULAR DEALINGS; OR (III) ANY LEGAL PRACTITIONER WHO IS ENTITLED TO PRA CTISE IN ANY CIVIL COURT IN INDIA; OR (IV) AN ACCOUNTANT; OR (V) ANY PERSON WHO HAS PASSED ANY ACCOUNTANCY EXAMINATION RECOGNISED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE BOARD; OR (VI) ANY PERSON WHO HAS ACQUIRED SUCH EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AS THE BOARD MAY PRESCRIBE FOR THIS PURPOSE; OR (VIA) ANY PERSON WHO BEFORE THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THIS ACT IN THE UNION TERRITORY OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI GOA DAMAN AND DIU OR PONDICHERRY ATTENDE D PAGE 5 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 BEFORE AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY IN THE SAID TERRITORY ON BEHALF OF ANY ASSESSEE OTHERWISE THAN IN THE CAPACI TY OF AN EMPLOYEE OR RELATIVE OF THAT ASSESSEE; OR (VII) ANY OTHER PERSON WHO IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT WAS AN INCOME-TAX PRACTITIONER WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 61 OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT 1922 (11 OF 1922) AND WAS ACTUALLY PRACTISING AS SUC H. EXPLANATION: IN THIS SECTION 'ACCOUNTANT' MEANS A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 2254 WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1949 (38 OF 1949) AND INCLUDES IN RELATION TO ANY STATE ANY PERSON WHO B Y VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTIO N 226 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 (1 OF 1956) IS ENTITLED TO BE APPOINTED TO ACT AS AN AUDITOR OF COMPANIES REGISTER ED IN THAT STATE. 5. WHAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND FROM SUB-SECTION (1) OF S ECTION 288 IS THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO IS ENTITLED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL CAN ATTEND THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE IS DEFINED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC TION 288 AND BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE (V) THEREOF ANY PERSON WHO HAS PAS SED ANY PAGE 6 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 ACCOUNTANCY EXAMINATION RECOGNIZED BY THE BOARD IS AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. RULE 50 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES SP ECIFIES THE EXAMINATIONS RECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE ( V) OF SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 288. SUCH ACCOUNTANCY EXAMINATIONS RECOGNIZED ARE AS UNDER: (1) THE NATIONAL DIPLOMA IN COMMERCE AWARDED BY TH E ALL- INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION UNDER THE MINI STRY OF EDUCATION NEW DELHI PROVIDED THE DIPLOMA-HOLDER HA S TAKEN ADVANCED ACCOUNTANCY AND AUDITING AS AN ELECTIV E SUBJECT FOR THE DIPLOMA EXAMINATION. (2) GOVERNMENT DIPLOMA IN COMPANY SECRETARYSHIP AWARDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS UNDER THE MINIST RY OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMPANY AFFAIRS NEW DEL HI.] [(2A) FINAL EXAMINATION OF THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA NEW DELHI.] [(3) THE FINAL EXAMINATION OF THE INSTITUTE OF COS T AND WORKS ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA CONSTITUTED UNDER THE COST AND WO RKS ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1959 (23 OF 1959).] [(4) THE DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATIONS CONDUCTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES FOR [ASSESSING OFFICERS] CLASS I OR GROUP A PROBATIONERS OR F OR [ASSESSING OFFICERS] CLASS II OR GROUP B PROBAT IONERS OR FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF [ASSESSING OFFICERS] CLASS II OR GROUP B AS THE CASE MAY BE.] PAGE 7 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 [(5) THE REVENUE AUDIT EXAMINATION FOR SECTION OFF ICERS CONDUCTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITO R GENERAL OF INDIA.] 6. BY VIRTUE OF SUB-RULE (4) OF RULE 50 DEPARTMENT AL EXAMINATIONS CONDUCTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF CBDT IS R ECOGNIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTION (2) TO SEC TION 288 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. ON THE CLAIM OF SHRI SUBBARAYAN THAT HE HAD PASSED SUCH DEPARTMENTAL EXA MINATION WHILE IN SERVICE. NOW COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. THAT EVERY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPEARING BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL HAD TO APPLY TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER WITHIN WHOSE AREA OF JURISDICTION HE WAS PRACTICING IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 54 OF THE RULES AND OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION AS P ER RULE 55 WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT. RULE 54 OF THE RULES IS REPRODUC ED AS UNDER: 54. (1) ANY PERSON WHO WISHES TO HAVE HIS NAME ENTERED AS AN AUTHORIZED INCOME-TAX PRACTITIONER IN THE REGISTER SHALL APPLY TO THE [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] WITHIN WHOSE AREA OF JURISDICTION HE H AS BEEN PRACTICING. THE APPLICATION SHALL BE MADE IN FORM NO. 39 AND SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR INCOME-TAX PAGE 8 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 PRACTICE UNDER CLAUSE (V) OR CLAUSE (VI) 2 [OR CLAUSE (VIA)] OR CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288. (2) THE APPLICANT SHALL ALSO FURNISH SUCH FURTHER INFORMATION AS THE [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] MAY REQUIRE IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION. 7. AS PER THIS RULE A PERSON WHO WISHES TO HAVE HI S NAME ENTERED AS AN AUTHORIZED INCOME TAX PRACTITIONER IN THE REGISTER HAS NECESSARILY TO APPLY TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER WITHIN WHOSE AREA OF JURISDICTION HE WAS PRACTICING. OBVIOUSLY A PERSON WHO DID NOT WISH TO HAVE HIS NAME SO ENTERED NEED NOT MAKE ANY SUCH APPLICATION AT ALL. AUTHORIZED INCOME-TAX PRACTITIO NER IS A NOMENCLATURE WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN SECT ION 288 OF THE ACT. IT FINDS A MENTION IN PART XI AND RULE 49 OF T HE RULES ONLY. SAID RULE READS AS UNDER: IN THIS PART (A) AUTHORIZED INCOME-TAX PRACTITIONER MEANS ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (V) OR CLAUSE (VI ) OR CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288; PAGE 9 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 8. THUS AS PER CLAUSE (A) OF RULE 49 AN AUTHORIZE D INCOME-TAX PRACTITIONER IS ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS D EFINED IN CLAUSE (V) OR CLAUSE (VI) OR CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION ( 2) OF SECTION 288 FOR APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IT CANNOT BE READ TO MEAN THAT AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS DEFINED IN SUB-SECTION (2) HAS TO GET HIMSELF REGISTERED AS AN AUTHORIZED INCOME-TAX PRAC TITIONER. SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 DOES NOT SAY THAT THE AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL ALSO BE AN AUTHORIZED I.T. PRA CTITIONER REGISTERED UNDER RULES 54 AND 55 OF THE RULES. THE RIGHT GIVEN IN THIS RESPECT BY THE ACT CANNOT BE DILUTED BY RULES NOR CAN IT BE RESTRICTED BY RULES BY SPECIFYING A PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION. THE RIGHT GIVEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO APPOINT AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAS THE QUALIFICATION TO BECOME AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE AS DEFINED UNDER THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED. IN OTHER WO RDS A PERSON HAVING THE QUALIFICATION MENTIONED UNDER THE ACT CA NNOT BE STOPPED FROM APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT SHRI SUBBARAYAN IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE ACT TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS AUT HORIZED PAGE 10 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 REPRESENTATIVE AND OBJECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IN T HIS REGARD IS REJECTED. 9. HAVING DEALT WITH THE INITIAL OBJECTION RAISED WE NOW PROCEED WITH THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. REASONS WHY THE LD. CIT DENIED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA APPEARS AT PARA 7 OF HIS ORDE R WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF TH E AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ABSENCE OF ORIGINA L TRUST DEED THE AMENDED DEED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL DEED MORE SO WHEN ORIGINAL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE TRUST HAS BEEN CHANGED BY THE TRUST O N ITS OWN WITHOUT SEEKING CLEARANCE FROM THE INCOME TA X DEPARTMENT. SECONDLY 25 PERSONS HAVE INITIALLY INVESTED IN LAND BY CONTRIBUTING ENTIRE MONEY IN CAS H AND SIMILARLY THEY HAVE BROUGHT IN A SUM OF RS.12 LA KHS IN THE TRUST BY BRINGING IN RS. 50 000/- IN CASH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHOOL. MANY OF THE TRUSTEES DO NOT HAVE TAXABLE INCOME AND INVESTMENT MADE BY THEM IS QUESTIONABLE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS. THIRDLY TH E TRUST IS CHARGING EXORBITANT FEES AS SCHOOL FEES AND IS SPENDING ONLY A SMALL PART TOWARDS THE SALARY OF TH E PAGE 11 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 TEACHERS AND OTHER RELATED EXPENSES. THE SCHOOL IS GENERATING SUBSTANTIAL SURPLUSES YEAR TO YEAR WHICH AR E BEING UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING OF THE SCHOOL. IT IS APPARENT THAT NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE TRUST AND IT IS RUN WITH PROFI T MOTIVE ONLY. LASTLY THE TRUST IS ALSO RUNNING HOSTE L AND TRANSPORT SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT PART OF EDUCATION ACTIVITY AND THE TRUST IS MAKING PROFIT ON THESE ACTIVITIES ALSO. IN VIEW OF VARIOUS DEFECTS AS POIN TED OUT ABOVE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPLICANT TRUST IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE A CT. THEREFORE ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IS HERE BY REJECTED. 10. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL TRUST DEED COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED WHERE ORIGINAL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE TRUST WAS CHANGED WITHOUT SEEKING PRIOR CLEARANCE F ROM THE INCOME- TAX DEPARTMENT. WE CANNOT SEE IN ANY OF THE SECTIO NS 11 12 AND 13 ANY PROVISION WHICH SAYS THAT AN ASSESSEE CANNOT MA KE ANY CHANGES OF THE LIKE MENTIONED WITHOUT GETTING PRIOR CLEARA NCE FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. RELATED RULE 17A 17B AND 1 7C OF THE I.T. RULES ALSO DO NOT MENTION ANYWHERE THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS TO GET ANY PREVIOUS SANCTION FROM THE I.T. DEPARTMENT BEFORE E FFECTING ANY PAGE 12 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 SUCH AMENDMENTS. IN OUR OPINION THE DEPARTMENT CA NNOT FASTEN ON THE ASSESSEE A DUTY MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN PRESCRI BED UNDER THE STATUTE AND BY DOING SO THE DEPARTMENT WAS TAKING UP THE ROLE OF A LAW MAKING AUTHORITY AND INDULGING IN ACTS WHICH AR E ULTRA VIRES THE POWERS VESTED ON IT. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS W AS THE FIRST APPLICATION EVER MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH A R EGISTRATION. SECOND REASON CITED BY THE LD. CIT IS THAT 25 PERSO NS HAD INITIALLY INVESTED IN LAND BY CONTRIBUTING ENTIRE MONEY IN CA SH AND FURTHER BROUGHT IN A SUM OF RS. 25 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO HIM MANY OF THE TRUSTEES DID NOT HAVE TAXABLE INCOME AND INVESTMENT S MADE BY THEM WERE QUESTIONABLE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS. W E FIND THAT THE ACT SPECIFIES A METHODOLOGY WHERE ANONYMOUS RECEIPT S ARE RECEIVED BY A TRUST. SECTION 115 BBC OF THE ACT SPECIFY A M ETHOD FOR TAXING ANONYMOUS DONATIONS. THUS EVEN IF WE CONSIDER THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE NOT HAVING ANY WHEREWITHAL TO CONTRIBUTE THE S UMS MENTIONED AND EVEN IF WE TREAT SUCH DONATIONS AS COMING FROM ANONYMOUS SOURCES IT WOULD NOT BE REASON TO DENY REGISTRATIO N U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THIRD REASON CITED BY THE LD. CIT IS THAT THE TRUST WAS CHARGING EXORBITANT AMOUNTS AS SCHOOL FEES AND WAS SPENDING ONLY A SMALL PART TOWARDS THE SALARY OF THE TEACHERS AND OTHER R ELATED EXPENSES. PAGE 13 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 THIS REASONING IN OUR OPINION COULD BE RELEVANT O NLY IF RUNNING OF THE SCHOOL WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE RUNNING OF THE MAI N OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. WHEN EDUCATION ITSELF WAS THE MAIN OBJECT RUNNING OF A SCHOOL COULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENTAL. TH ERE IS NO FINDING BY THE LD. CIT THAT ANY EXCESS OR SURPLUS WAS USED OR DIVERTED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR EDUCATIONAL NEEDS. ON T HE OTHER HAND THERE IS A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE FUNDS WERE USED F OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING OF THE SCHOOL. WHERE EDUCATION IS ITS ELF IS CHARITABLE U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING TO CARRY ON SUCH EDUCATION OR IN OTHER WORDS SPENDING MONEY FOR RAI SING NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD ALSO BE VERY MUCH CHARITABLE. THE FINAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT IS THAT THE TRUST WAS RUNNING HOSTEL AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND SUCH ACTIVITIES WERE NOT PART OF ITS EDUCATION ACTIVITY AND THAT THE TRUST WAS MAKING PROFIT ON THESE ACTIV ITIES. THIS VIEW IS ALSO INCORRECT IN OUR OPINION. A SCHOOL HAS TO HAVE HOSTEL AND A MODE OF TRANSPORTING THE STUDENTS. SURPLUS IF ANY GENERATED AS LONG AS IT WAS USED FOR EDUCATIONAL OBJECTS WOULD N OT MAKE THE INSTITUTION NON CHARITABLE. THUS NONE OF THE REASO NS CITED BY THE LD. CIT WERE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING TH E APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT SUCH PAGE 14 OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 1331/MDS/2010 REGISTRATION WAS UNJUSTLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. ORDER OF THE LD. CIT IS QUASHED AND HE IS DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRA TION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.03.2011. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA ) ( ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 16 TH MARCH 2011. VL COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE