RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH, Jaipur v. CIT-EXEMPTION, Jaipur

ITA 335/JPR/2015 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 33523114 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAAAR0336D
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 335/JPR/2015
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH, Jaipur
Respondent CIT-EXEMPTION, Jaipur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-09-2016
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 06-04-2015
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHE S JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 335/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH B-20 1 ST FLOOR CHANDPOLE ANAJ MANDI JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAAAR 0336 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.S. KOTHARI ( CIT ) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/09/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(E) JAIPUR DATED 18.03.2015 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR U/S 12AA( 1)(B) IS UNLAWFUL ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 2 (II) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN REFUSING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE IT ACT 1961. (III) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CHARITABLE WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A TRADE ASSOCIATION CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RAJASTHAN NON-T RADING COMPANIES ACT AND IS REGISTERED UNDER CERTIFICATE NO.41 OF 1996 DATED 09.09.1966 WITH THE REGISTRAR OF NON-TRADING COMPANIES JAIPUR RAJAST HAN. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S 12A(1)(A) ON 05.09.2014 SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA BEFORE THE LD CIT(EXEMPTION). THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIO N) HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 12AA(1)(B) ON 18.03.2015 REFUSING REGISTRATION TO T HE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.1 THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(E) ARE REP RODUCED AS UNDER: IN THE CASE OF PRESENT APPLICANT THE MEMBERSHIP I S LIMITED TO PERSONS RELATED TO FOOD PRODUCTS ONLY AND ALL THE OBJECTS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF TRADERS OF KHADYA PADARTH. THIS CONSIST OF A VERY LIMITED AND SMALL GROUP AND NOT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. IN SECTION 2(15) THE LEGISLATUR E HAS USED LANGUAGE OF GREAT AMPLITUDE CHARITABLE PURPOSE WHICH NOT ONLY INCLUDE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF EDUCATION MEDICAL ETC. BUT ALSO ADVANCEMENT OF OTHE R OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE CLAUSE IS INTENDED TO SERVE PUBLIC AT CHARITABLE FALLING UNDER THE ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 3 HEAD ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER GENERAL PUBLIC UTILIT Y. THIS IS TOTALLY MISSING IN THE CASE OF APPLICANT. BESIDES THE OBJECTS THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVIT IES WERE ALSO EXAMINED ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLAN T. IN THE INCOME AND APPLICATION ACCOUNT SUBMITTED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 14 87 975/- INCLUDING RE CEIPT OF SPECIAL ASSISTANCE OF RS. 1 30 000/-. THE MAIN COMPONENT OF EXPENDITURE/A PPLICATION IS ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLICITY AND ALL THE EXPENSES ARE OF ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE NOT RELATED TO OBJECT IN ANY MANNER. SIMILARLY IN T HE ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED FOR A.Y. 2012-13 AGAINST THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS.77 72 123/- IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED APPLICATION OF RS.29 72 642/- TOWARDS MAHA SAMMELLAN EXPENSES AND ALL OTHER EXPENSES ARE OF ADMINISTRAT IVE NATURE. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS IT IS APPARENT THAT EVEN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSOCIATION/SOCIETY ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND ALSO NOT FOR THE BENEFIT O F PUBLIC AT LARGE. BASED ON ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT OBJECT O F THE SOCIETY/ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE AS THEY ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARTICULAR GROUP OF PERSONS. THE SOCIETY/TRUST CANN OT BE HELD AS CHARITABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF 2(15) OF THE IT ACT. BASED O N ABOVE I AM SATISFIED THAT THE SOCIETY/ASSOCIATION IS NOT FIT FOR REGISTRATION AND THEREFORE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IS REFUSED. 2.2 THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTS OF TH E INSTITUTION ARE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND THEREFORE CHARITABLE :- (A) THE LEARNED CIT(E) HAS REFUSED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE OBJECT OF THE INSTITUTION ARE N OT CHARITABLE. A COPY OF THE RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SAN CONSTITUTION OF THE INSTITUTION IS AVAILABLE ON OBJECTS ARE REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SAN GH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 4 CONSTITUTION OF THE INSTITUTION IS AVAILABLE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 4 TO 9. OBJECTS ARE REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: - ITA NO. 335/JP/15 GH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 4 TO 9. THE ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 5 THE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID OBJECTS REVEALS THAT O BJECT AT NO. ( D ) VERY EMPHATICALLY STATES THAT THE FIRST AND FOREMOST OBJ ECT OF THE INSTITUTION IS TO ENCOURAGE GOODWILL COOPERATION AND UNITY IN THE SO CIETY OF KHADYA PADARTH VPARIK AUDHOGIK SAMAJ. THIS SHOWS THAT THE OBJECT I S FOR THE SOCIETY OR AT THE MOST FOR A SECTION OF SOCIETY ENGAGED IN FOOD TRADE AND INDUSTRY. THIS SECTION OF THE SOCIETY PERTAINING TO FOOD TRADE AND INDUSTR Y IS QUITE BIG HUGE AND ENORMOUS AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS LIMITED TO A SMALL GROUP OF PERSONS. ANY ACTIVITY FOSTERING AND ENCOURAGING GOODWILL COOPER ATION ETC. AUTOMATICALLY IS AN ACTIVITY OF ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILIT Y. THEREFORE IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED CIT(E) TO HOLD THAT IT WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SMALL GROUP OF PERSONS. (C) THE OBJECT AT SERIAL NUMBER ( M ) IS FOR ACTIVITY ENCOURAGING TRADE AND INDUSTRY AND FOR THAT PURPOSE EXTENDING COOPERATION IN THE MAKING OF RULES ETC. THIS OBJECT AGAIN VERY CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE INSTITUTION WAS NOT FOR A SMALL GROUP OF PERSONS BUT FOR THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. THE FOOD TRADE AND INDUSTRY ULTIMATELY SERVES THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND NOT A SMALL GROUP OF PERSONS AND THE INSTITUTION IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOOD AND TRADE INDUSTRY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LEAR NED CIT(E) ERRED IN REFUSING REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. (D) THE OTHER OBJECTS ARE ANCILLARY AND COMPLEMENTA RY TO THE MAIN OBJECTS STATED ABOVE. THE OTHER OBJECTS INCLUDE PUBLICATION OF LITERATURE IN THE ABOVE REGARD INTERACTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ABOV E REGARD AND CONDUCTING OTHER ACTIVITIES FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE OBJEC TS. THERE IS NO SUCH OBJECT WHICH IS NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 6 THUS THE OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTION CONFIRM AND ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE PROVIDED U/S 2(15) WHICH INCLUDES ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 2.3 AS REGARDS THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(E) T HAT THE ACTIVITIES OF INSTITUTION ARE ALSO NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND T HESE ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PERSONS THE LD AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(E) IS ERRONEOUS. THE LEARNED CIT(E) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTION AND THEREFORE HAS WRONGL Y CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTION WERE NOT FOR THE PUBL IC AT LARGE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE FORGOING PARAS THAT THE INSTITUTIO N WORKS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOOD TRADE AND INDUSTRY. THE EACH A ND EVERY ACTIVITY OF THE INSTITUTION WAS WHOLLY EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ATTAINM ENT OF DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF FOOD TRADE AND INDUSTR Y WHICH AFFECTS THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. NOT A SINGLE ACTIVITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT B Y THE LEARNED CIT(E) WHICH IN NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTI ON. THE EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLICITY AND MAHASAMMELAN BEING OF ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE CANNOT BE TERMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE B ENEFIT OF A SMALL GROUP OF PERSONS. THE SWEEPING GENERALIZATION HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE NATURE OF THE OBJECTS. 2.4 THE LD AR FURTHER DRAWN REFERENCE TO THE AMENDM ENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT 2008 AND THE SPEECH OF THE FINANCE MINI STER. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FINANCE ACT 2008 HAD AMENDED THE DEFINITIO N OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY W.E.F. ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. IT LAID DOWN THAT IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AS CHA RITABLE PURPOSE IF :- ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 7 (A) IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ACTIVITIES IN TH E NATURE OF TRADE COMMERCE OR BUSINESS; OR (B) ACTIVITIES OF RENDERING SERVICES IN RELATION TO TRADE COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A CESS FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION . THESE HAVE BEEN FURTHER SUBJECTED THE AMENDMENT VID E FINANCE ACT 2010 AND 2011 LAYING THE LIMIT OF RECEIPTS FROM SUCH ACTIVIT Y TO RS. 25 LACS. HOWEVER WHILE MOVING THE AMENDMENT IN LOK SABHA THE FINANCE MINISTER MADE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH ON 29.04.2008:- 'I ONCE AGAIN ASSURE THE HOUSE THAT GENUINE CHARITA BLE ORGANIZATIONS WILL NOT IN ANY WAY BE AFFECTED. THE CBDT WILL FOLLOWIN G THE USUAL PRACTICE ISSUE AN EXPLANATORY CIRCULAR CONTAINING GUIDELINES FOR DETE RMINING WHETHER AN ENTITY IS CARRYING OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO AN Y TRADE COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. WHETHER THE PURPOSE IS A CHARITABLE WILL DEPEND ON THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ORDINARILY CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS RENDERING SERVICES TO THEIR MEMBERS WOULD NOT BE AF FECTED BY THE AMENDMENT AND THEIR ACTIVITIES WOULD CONTINUE TO BE REGARDED AS 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY.' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT ORGANIZATION RENDERING SERVICES TO THEIR MEMBERS ENGAGED IN FOOD TRADE AND INDUSTRY WOULD BE COVERED IN THE DEFINITION OF ADVANCEMENT OF OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBL IC UTILITY. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED AND THE ASSESSEE DESERVES REGIS TRATION U/S 12AA. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CBDT HAS ALSO ISS UED A CIRCULAR NO. 11/2008 DATED 19.12.2008 CLARIFYING THE ABOVE POSITION. IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IN THE CIRCULAR THAT TRADE AND ORGANIZATIONS ARE COVERED U NDER ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IN PARA 3.1 THE CIRCULAR CL EARLY LAYS DOWN THAT WHERE THE ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 8 INDUSTRY OR TRADE ASSOCIATIONS CLAIM TO BE CHARITAB LE AS WELL AS MUTUAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE RESTRICTED T O CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AND PARTICIPATION OF THEIR MEMBERS THESE WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OWING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE CIRCULAR. THE OBJE CT OF THE INSTITUTION IS CHARITABLE AS IT EXISTS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF FOOD TRADE AND INDUSTRY WHICH SERVES THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND NOT TO A GROUP OF PE OPLE. THEREFORE REGISTRATION TO THE INSTITUTION U/S 12AA MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 2.5 IN RESPECT OF DECISIONS QUOTED BY THE LD CIT(E) THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS IN RESPECT OF INDIAN NUTRITIONAL MEDI CAL ASSOCIATION (2013) 35 TAXMAN 505 (COACHIN); BEL EMPLOYEES DEATH RELIEF FU ND AND SERVICE BENEFIT FUND ASSOCIATION (KAR) 225 ITR 270; TRUCK OPERATORS ASSOCIATION (P&H) 328 ITR 636 ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E AS THESE CASES PERTAIN TO SMALLER GROUPS/ASSOCIATIONS WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE OBJECT IS FOOD TRADE AND INDUSTRY WHICH TOUCHES THE PUBLIC A T LARGE. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF WESTERN INDIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LTD. (198 2) 136 ITR 67 (BOM.) IS VERY OLD AND HAS SINCE BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE DECIS IONS QUOTED BELOW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE DIVERGENT D ECISION ON A SAME ISSUE THE ONE THAT IS FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FO LLOWED 88 ITR 192 AND 177 ITR 431 (SC). THE LD AR THEREAFTER DRAWN REFERENCE TO THE DECISIO N OF DAWOODI BOHARIA JAMAT (2014) 364 ITR 31 (SC) AND CIT VS. JODHPUR CH ARTERED ACCOUNTANT SOCIETY 258 ITR 548 (RAJ). ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 9 2.3 THE LD CIT DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUE D THE MATTER AND DRAWN REFERENCE TO THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD CIT IN HIS ORDER WHILE REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION. 2.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE UNDER CO NSIDERATION IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WHERE THE TERM CHARITABLE PURPOSE HAS BEEN DEFINED TO INCLUDE RELIEF OF THE POOR EDUCATION MEDICAL RELIEF AND ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. AS PER THE LD CIT(E) WHERE THE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS N OT FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC AT LARGE AND LIMITED TO A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THEN I T WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE LD. CIT(E) HELD THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE MEMBERSHIP IS LIMITED TO PERSONS RELATED TO FOOD PRODUCTS ONLY AND ALL THE OBJECTS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF TRADERS OF KHADYA PA DARTH. ACCORDINGLY HE HELD THAT THE MEMBERSHIP IS LIMITED TO A SMALL GROUP AND NOT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND IN VIEW OF THAT HE HAD DENIED THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 2.5 THE ISSUE THEREFORE RELATES TO THE TERM GENERA L PUBLIC UTILITY. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE TERM GENERAL PUBL IC UTILITY WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. DAWOODJI BOHRA JAMAT (364 ITR 31) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS OF THE WIDEST CONNOTATION AND THE WORD GENERAL IN THE SAID EXPRESSION MEANS PE RTAINING TO A WHOLE CLASS. IT FURTHER HELD THAT ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC OR A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM BENEFI T TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE PR OPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS CONTAINED AT PARA 3 0 OF ITS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 10 (30) ACCORDING TO SECTION 2(15) THE EXPRESSION CHARITA BLE PURPOSE HAS BEEN DEFINED BY WAY OF AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION SO AS TO INCLUDE RELIEF TO THE POOR EDUCATION MEDICAL RELIEF AND ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OT HER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. A CATENA OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH HAVE INTERPRETED THE SAID PROVISION AND ESPECIALLY THE EXPRESSION ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION IS OF THE WIDEST CONNOTATION. THE WORD GENERAL IN THE SAID EXPRESSION MEANS PE RTAINING TO A WHOLE CLASS. (CIT VS. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD (2007) 14 SCC 704) . THEREFORE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC OR A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM BENEFIT TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP OF INDIVID UALS WOULD BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. (CIT VS . AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSN.) THE SAID EXPRESSION WOULD PRIMA FACIE INCLUDE ALL OBJECTS WHICH PROMOTE THE W ELLBEING OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A PURPOSE WOULD CE ASE TO BE CHARITABLE EVEN WHEN PUBLIC WELFARE IS INTENDED TO BE SERVED. 2.6 FURTHER WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JODHPUR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SOCIETY ( 258 ITR 548) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS A SETTLED PO SITION THAT IN ORDER THAT A PURPOSE MAY QUALIFY FOR BEING REGARDED AS AN OBJEC T OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IT MUST BE INTENDED TO BENEFIT A SECTION OF PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SPECIFIED INDIVIDUALS. IN THAT DECISION HONBLE HIGH COURT REFERRED TO AN DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD RAN A CASTE ASSOCIATION VS. CIT WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ......... AN OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO A SECTION OF TH E PUBLIC IS AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. TO SERVE A CHARITABLE PURPO SE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE OBJECT SHOULD BE TO BENEFIT THE WHOLE OF M ANKIND OR ALL PERSONS IN A COUNTRY OR STATE. IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE INT ENTION TO BENEFIT A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SPECIFIED IN DIVIDUAL IS PRESENT. THE SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY SOUGHT TO BE BENEFITED MUS T BE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND IDENTIFIABLE BY SOME COMMON QUALITY OF A PUBLIC OR IMPERSONAL NATURE. 2.7 THE ABOVE JURISPRUDENCE PROVIDES SUFFICIENT BIN DING GUIDELINE TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE. APPL YING THE SAME THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROMOTE G OODWILL CO-OPERATION AND UNITY IN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH. THIS SHOWS T HAT THE PREDOMINANT ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 11 OBJECT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SECTION OF THE SOCIE TY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN FOOD TRADE AND THE RELATED INDUSTRY AND IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT THE TRADE ASSOCIATION IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SMALL GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. THE SANGH OR THE TRADE ASSOCIATION IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND IDENTIFIAB LE BY A COMMON QUALITY OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN FOOD TRADE AND THE RELATED INDUS TRY. FURTHER THE OBJECTIVES ALSO RELATES TO CARRYING OUT ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO FORMULATION OF FOOD TRADE POLICIES RULES AND REGULATIONS AND DEAL ING WITH THE GOVERNMENT BODIES. THESE ACTIVITIES WILL NOT JUST HELP THE ME MBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION BUT WILL HELP SET UP AN ENVIRONMENT OF MUTUAL TRUST AND COOPERATION AMONG THE MEMBERS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ETC. THE ULTIMATE BEN EFICIARY OF SUCH ACTIVITIES WILL THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE ASSOCIATION SATISFIES THE TEST OF THE GENERAL PUBLI C UTILITY AND THUS CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND QUALIFIES FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 12 AA OF THE ACT. WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(E) TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESS EES ASSOCIATION U/S 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/ 09/2016. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 27/ 09/2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR ITA NO. 335/JP/15 RAJASTHAN KHADYA PADARTH VYAPAR SANGH JAIPUR VS. CIT(E) JAIPUR 12 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)- JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.335/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR +