MEHTA JIVRAJ MAKANDAS & PAREKH GOVINDAJI KALYANJI MODH VANIK VIDYARTHI PUBLIC TRUST, MUMBAI v. DIT(E), MUMBAI

ITA 2212/MUM/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 221219914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAATM4796M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2212/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant MEHTA JIVRAJ MAKANDAS & PAREKH GOVINDAJI KALYANJI MODH VANIK VIDYARTHI PUBLIC TRUST, MUMBAI
Respondent DIT(E), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 11-03-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 19-03-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH(AM) AND SHRI V.D.RAO (JM) ITA NO.2212/M/2010 MEHTA JIVRAJ MAKANDAS & PAREKH THE DIT(E) PIRAMA L CHAMBERS GOVINDAJI KALYANJI MODH VANIK PAREL MUMBAI VIDYARTHI PUBLIC TRUST 15 GYANJIVANDAS MARG 3 RD VINCENT SQUARE STREET DADAR(C.R.) MUMBAI 400 014. PAN : AAATM 4796 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.H. DALAL REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. NAYAK O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 3.2.10 OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) (DIT-E). THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED IS REGARDING RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G WH ICH HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE DIT(E). 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE APPELLANT TRUST HAD BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.1975 AND HAD ALSO BEEN GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDE R SECTION 80G EARLIER. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION DATED 13.4.2009 REQU ESTING FOR RENEWAL OF 2 EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G. THE DIT(E) NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HAD BEEN AMENDED AND NEW OBJECTS WERE INSERTE D IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.1994 OF THE CHARITY OFFICER UNDER SECTIO N 50A(1) OF BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST (BPT) ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD HOWEVER NOT FILED ANY FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WHICH HAD BEEN GRANT ED ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS. IN VIEW OF THE CHANGES IN THE OBJ ECTS THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A DID NOT SURVIVE. REFERENCE WAS MA DE TO JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF ALLHABAD AGRICUL TURAL INSTITUTE AND OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA (291 ITR 116) THE DIT(E) THEREFORE A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPR OVAL UNDER SECTION 80G SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE TRUST HAD BEEN CREATED IN 1945 WHEN THE BPT ACT HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED. THE TRUST HAD BEEN FORMED WITH THE OBJECT OF RUNNING A VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN (HOS TEL) FOR ACCOMMODATING THE STUDENTS BELONGING TO THE MODH COMMUNITY. AFTER DEM ISE OF THE ORIGINAL TRUSTEES THE NEW TRUSTEES THOUGHT IT FIT TO OPEN A DMISSION TO ALL THE STUDENTS WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION AS TO CASTE AND CREED. THE SCHEME WAS THEREFORE PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIO NER AND THE NEW OBJECTS APPROVED BY THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER WERE INCORPORA TED IN THE TRUST DEED WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. TO PROMOTE AND SPREAD EDUCATION BY ESTABLISHING BOARDING HOUSE ENABLING THE POOR AND DESERVING BOYS BELONGING TO A NY COMMUNITY TO PROSECUTE HIGHER STUDIES SUCH AS ARTS MEDICAL EN GINEERING AGRICULTURE COMMERCE TECHNICAL EDUCATION OF ANY KIND AND POST GRADUATE COURSES. 2. TO PROVIDE CHEAP RENT ACCOMMODATION TO POOR AND DESERVING STUDENTS BELONGING TO ANY COMMUNITY IN BOMBAY CITY OR SUBURBS. 3 3. TO PROVIDE MEDICAL AID TO THE POOR AND DESERVING INCLUDING PROVIDING HOSPITALIZATION OF ANY COMMUNITY IN BOMBA Y AND MAHARASHTRA. 3. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE N O REAL CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS OF TRUST AS THE NEW OBJECTS WERE SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS AND THE ONLY MAJOR CHANGE WAS THAT IT WAS MADE APPLICABLE T O ALL DESERVING STUDENTS AND NOT LIMITED TO MODH COMMUNITY. IT WAS ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT NONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 12A HAD BEEN CONTRAVENED AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO CASE FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GESTETNER DUPLICATORS P. LTD. (117 ITR 1). IT WAS POINTED OU T THAT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICU LTURAL INSTITUTE & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA (291 ITR 116) WAS DISTINGUISHABLE AS THE ISSUE RAISED THEREIN WAS NOT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80G. THE ASSESSE E ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD INTIMATED THE CHANGES IN THE TRUST DEED TO THE AO. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY URGED THAT CLAIM OF RENEWAL UNDER SECTION 80G SHOULD BE A LLOWED. 4. THE DIT(E) WAS HOWEVER NOT SATISFIED BY THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN. IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THER E HAD BEEN CHANGES MADE IN THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO MMUNICATED THE CHANGES TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS. THE ISSUE THERE FORE AROSE WHETHER THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL OBJECTS WOULD SURVIVE AFTER THE OBJECTS WERE AMENDED. IT WAS OBSE RVED BY HIM THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING ADDITION/ DELETION OF THE OBJECTS HAD BEE N DEALT WITH BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN CASE OF SAKTHI CHARITIES VS CIT (149 ITR 624) AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE SAME CASE AS REPORTED IN 182 IT R 483. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : 4 (A) A RECTIFICATION DEED CANNOT BE VALID UNLESS TH ERE IS POWER TO ALTER THE OBJECTS IN THE TRUST DEED ITSELF. (B) ONCE A TRUST HAD BEEN FOUNDED WITH CERTAIN OBJE CTS THOSE OBJECTS COULD NOT BE DELETED EVEN BY THE FOUNDER OF THE TRU ST THOUGH IT WAS POSSIBLE TO ADD SOME OTHER CHARITABLE OBJECTS WITHO UT ANY DETRIMENT TO THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS. (C) THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST CAN BE AMENDED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE HON. HIGH COURT. 5. IT WAS THUS CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTS COULD NOT BE ADDED OR DELETED EXCEPT UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALS O NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN THE STATUTORY FORM NO.10A AS PER WHI CH THE ASSESSEE HAD TO GIVE AN UNDERTAKING TO COMMUNICATE FORTHWITH ANY AL TERATION IN OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR IN THE RULES GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION. TH IS UNDERTAKING WAS ALSO NOT FULFILLED AND CHANGE WAS INTIMATED ONLY AFTER 15 YE ARS VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2009. THE INTIMATION WAS GIVEN ONLY AFTER THE SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED BY THE DIT(E). HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A COULD BE CANCELLED UNDER SECTION 12AA(3) ONLY IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE NOT GENUINE OR WERE NO T BEEN CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF TRUST. IT WAS OBSERV ED BY HIM THAT IT WAS NOT THE QUESTION OF THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES. THE QUES TION WAS THE IMPACT OF CHANGES ON THE VALIDITY OF TRUST DEED. ONCE THE TRU ST ITSELF BECAME INVALID THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A COULD NOT SU RVIVE. HE REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE VS UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH WER E THE BASIS OF GRANT OF 5 REGISTRATION WERE ALTERED THE VERY FOUNDATION OF R EGISTRATION HAVING BEEN REMOVED BY THE VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE ASSESSEE THE R EGISTRATION WOULD NOT SURVIVE. THEREFORE THE SAID JUDGMENT WAS DIRECTLY O N POINT AND WAS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE DIT(E) OBSERVED THAT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GESTETNER DUPLICATORS P. L TD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DIT(E) FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURAL INSTITU TE VS UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE CHANGES IN OBJECTS THE RE GISTRATION GRANTED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT DID NOT SURVIVE AND THEREFORE APPROV AL UNDER SECTION 80G COULD NOT BE GRANTED. THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80G( 5) COULD BE GRANTED ONLY TO A TRUST HAVING A VALID REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 1 2A. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING A VALID REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A THE REGISTRATION COULD NOT BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 80G. THE DIT(E) THEREFORE REJ ECTED THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 6. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ASSAIL ED THE ORDER OF DIT(E). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE CHANGES IN T HE OBJECTS WERE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50A(1) OF THE BPT ACT AND THEREFORE IN RESPECT OF SUCH CHANGES NO SANCTION OF THE HIGH COURT WAS NECESSARY . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE NO CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS OF THE TR UST WHICH REMAINED THE SAME AND THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT THE AREA OF APPLI CATION WAS ENLARGED AND IT WAS MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL DESERVING STUDENTS. THE OBJECTS REMAINED CHARITABLE EVEN AFTER CHANGES. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURAL INSTITU TE & ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) WAS DISTINGUISHABLE AS IN THAT CASE THERE W ERE SEVERAL CHANGES MADE IN 6 THE OBJECTS OF TRUST. AS REGARDS THE INTIMATION REG ARDING CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS AS PROVIDED IN THE FORM NO.10A IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SAID PROVISION. MOREOVER IT WAS ALSO P OINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR INTIMATING THE CHANGES AN D THEREFORE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS AS THE INTIMATION WAS U LTIMATELY GIVEN. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE WERE NO STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR SUCH INTIMATION AND INTIMATION WAS MENTIONED ONLY IN THE FORM NO.10A. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT RULE COULD NOT GO BEYOND THE LAW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN CASE OF MCT MUTHIAH CHETTIA R FAMILY TRUST VS ITO (86 ITR 282). THE TRUST HAD OTHERWISE BEEN FOUND IN ORD ER AS OBSERVED BY DIT(E) HIMSELF AND THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A HAVI NG NOT BEEN CANCELLED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RENEWAL UNDER SECTION 80G COULD NOT BE REJECTED. THE LEARNED AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMEN TS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE : (I) 300 ITR 214 (SC) IN CASE OF ACIT VS SURAT CITY GYMK HANA (II) 119 TTJ 121 (PUNE) BHARATIYA VIDHYA BHAVAN VS ITO (III) 46 DTR 121 (LUCK) CHATURVEDI HARPRASAD EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 7. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF DIT(E) AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE DIT(E). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT O F ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE VS UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN CASE OF SAKTHI CHAR ITIES (SUPRA) SUPPORTED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY URGED THAT THE ORDER OF DIT(E) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING RENEWAL OF EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANT ING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G IS THAT THE TRUST MUST BE REGISTERED UNDER SECT ION 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. IN THIS CASE TRUST HAD BEEN REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.1975. THE REGISTRATION SO GRANTED HAD NOT BEE N CANCELLED EVEN TILL DATE. THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS OF THE TRUST BASED ON WHICH RE GISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A HAD BEEN GRANTED WAS RUNNING A VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN (H OSTEL) FOR ACCOMMODATING STUDENTS BELONGING TO MODH COMMUNITY. SUBSEQUENTLY IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.1994 OF THE CHARITY OFFICER UNDER SECTIO N 50A(1) OF BPT ACT OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WERE AMENDED. THE NEW OBJECTS HAVE BEE N REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 OF THIS ORDER. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST CANNOT BE AMENDED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MAD RAS IN CASE OF SAKTHI CHARITIES VS CIT (149 ITR 624). IT HAS ALSO BEEN AR GUED THAT THE CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WAS NOT INTIMATED TO THE DEPAR TMENT AS PROVIDED IN THE FORM NO.10A. THE REVENUE HAS THEREFORE TAKEN THE VI EW THAT THE TRUST ORIGINALLY CONSTITUTED WAS NO LONGER VALID IN VIEW OF THE CHAN GES MADE IN THE TRUST. DIT(E) THEREFORE REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF RENEWAL UNDER SECTION 80G. 8.1 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CHANGES HAD B EEN MADE TO THE OBJECTS OF TRUST IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.94 OF THE CHARITY OFFICER UNDER SECTION 50A(1) OF THE BPT ACT. THEREFORE IN SUCH CASES APPR OVAL OF THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT NECESSARY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THER E WAS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF INTIMATING THE CHANGES. THE REQUIREM ENT OF INTIMATION WAS 8 PROVIDED ONLY IN THE FORM NO.10A WHICH WAS NOT A ST ATUTORY REQUIREMENT. THEREFORE REGISTRATION COULD NOT BE DENIED ONLY FOR NOT INTIMATING THE CHANGES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER CHANGES THE OBJECTS REMAINED CHARITABLE AND THERE WAS NO CHANGES IN THE ORIGINAL OBJECT WHICH WAS ONLY ENLARGED AND MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL STUDENTS. MOREO VER IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A HAD NOT BEEN CANCELLED AND WAS STILL IN FORCE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE W AS ENTITLED FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS ASPECTS CAREFULLY . THE OBJECTS IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN CHANGED UNDER SECTION 50A(1) OF THE B PT ACT. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID PROVISIONS. UNDER SECTION 50A(1) THE CHAR ITY COMMISSIONER EITHER ON HIS OWN OR ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN WRITING BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN A PUBLIC TRUST AND AFTER GIVING THE TRU STEES AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD CAN FRAME A SCHEME FOR MANAGEMENT OR ADMINIST RATION OF SUCH PUBLIC TRUST. THUS SECTION 50A(1) EMPOWERED THE CHARITY CO MMISSIONER ONLY FOR FRAMING A SCHEME FOR THE MANAGEMENT OR ADMINISTRATI ON OF PUBLIC TRUST. THE SAID SECTION DOES NOT GIVE ANY POWER FOR MAKING CHA NGES IN THE OBJECTS OF TRUST. WE ARE THEREFORE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ARGUME NT THAT CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS COULD BE MADE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE HIGH COURT IN CASE THE CHANGES WERE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER OF CHARITY COMMISSI ONER UNDER SECTION 50A(1). HOWEVER WE NOTE THAT THE TRUST IS ALREADY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ORIGINAL OBJECT OF THE TRUST OF PROVIDING HOSTEL ACCOMMODATION TO THE STUD ENTS HAS NOT BEEN DELETED. THE OBJECT HAS ONLY BEEN MODIFIED SO AS TO INCLUDE OTHER DESERVING STUDENTS ALSO IN ADDITION TO THE STUDENTS OF MODH COMMUNITY. THERE IS ONLY ONE ADDITION IN THE OBJECTS WHICH IS PROVIDING MEDICAL AID TO T HE POOR AND DESERVING PERSONS 9 OF ANY COMMUNITY. THUS EVEN THE AMENDED OBJECTS REM AIN CHARITABLE AND HAVE NOT CAUSED ANY DETRIMENT TO THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS AS STUDENTS OF THE MODH COMMUNITY CONTINUED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS . FURTHER THE TRUST HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G BA SED ON THE AMENDED OBJECTS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD. THERE IS NO STAT UTORY REQUIREMENT OF INTIMATING THE CHANGES TO THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT . THE REQUIREMENT OF INTIMATION IS MENTIONED ONLY IN THE FORM NO.10A AND EVEN IN THE FORM NO.10A THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY INTIMATED THE CHANGES TO THE DEPARTMENT THOUGH LATER AND THEREFOR E TECHNICALLY THERE IS NO VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF NO TIME LIMIT BEING PRESCRIBED. MOREOVER THERE BEING NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF I NTIMATING CHANGES REGISTRATION CANNOT BE CANCELLED OR THE TRUST CANNO T BE DECLARED INVALID ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT CHANGES WERE NOT INTIMATED. 9.1 THE OTHER ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE IS THAT BECAU SE OF THE CHANGES MADE IN THE TRUST WHICH WAS NOT LEGAL THE TRUST HAS BEC OME INVALID AND THEREFORE THE REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A COUL D NOT SURVIVE. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT O F ALLAHABAD IN CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA). WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID JUDGMENT. IN THAT CASE THE A SSESSEE HAD BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A BASED ON CERTAIN OBJ ECTS. SUBSEQUENTLY THERE WERE CHANGES MADE IN THE OBJECTS WHICH WERE NOT INT IMATED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE AO THEREFORE HELD THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12 A WAS NOT VALID AND THUS DID NOT GRANT EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE DECISION OF THE AO WAS CHALLENGED IN A WRIT PET ITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT THE RE WERE WHOLESALE CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS. THE NUMBER OF OBJECTS HAD BEEN INCR EASED TO 14 FROM 6 OBJECTS 10 IN THE ORIGINAL DEED. THE HIGH COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE TRUST COULD NOT SHOW THAT THE REVISED OBJECTS WERE PRACTICALLY THE SAME OR WERE CHARITABLE. IT WAS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE WRIT PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ORDER OF AO DID NOT CALL FOR I NTERFERENCE BY THE COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF EQUITABLE AND DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTIO N UNDER ARTICLE 226. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIFFERENT. THERE WERE PRACTICALL Y NO CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS. THE ORIGINAL OBJECT OF PROVIDING HOSTEL ACCOMMODATI ON REMAINED THE SAME. ONLY THE SCOPE WAS ENLARGED TO ALL STUDENTS. THE ON LY NEW OBJECT WAS MEDICAL AID TO POOR WHICH WAS ALSO CHARITABLE. THUS THE OBJ ECTS CONTINUED TO BE CHARITABLE. THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND CAN NOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 10. THE TRUST HAS ALREADY BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SEC TION 12A AND THE REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED. THE AO THEREFO RE CAN NOT PROBE THE OBJECTS AND DECLARE THE TRUST INVALID. THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS SURAT CITY GYMKHANA ALSO SUPPORTS THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WAS A FAIT ACCOMPLI TO HOLD BACK THE AO FROM FURTHER PROBE INTO THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS CONTINUE TO EXIST AND THE AMENDED OBJECTS R EMAIN CHARITABLE AND THE TRUST CONTINUES TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION UND ER SECTION 12A. PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY IS ALSO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS BA SED ON THE AMENDED OBJECTS RENEWAL OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G HAS ALREADY B EEN GRANTED AND FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION REMAINING THE SAME WE SE NO JUS TIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL UNDER SECTION 80G. 11 11. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE THE ORDER OF DIT(E) REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR RENEW AL OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. DIT(E) IS THEREFORE DIRECT ED TO GRANT RENEWAL OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 13. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 11.03.2011. SD/- SD/- ( V.D. RAO ) (RAJENDRA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 11.03.2011 AT :MUMBAI COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED 5. THE DR G BENCH ITAT MUMBAI // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI ALK