M/s Karumuri Padmanabham, Mahalakshmanna Arya Vysya Vruddashramam, Palakol v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

ITA 410/VIZ/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 41025314 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABAK0150H
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 410/VIZ/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant M/s Karumuri Padmanabham, Mahalakshmanna Arya Vysya Vruddashramam, Palakol
Respondent The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 07-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 05-10-2010
Next Hearing Date 05-10-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 22-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 410 & 411/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A KARUMURI PADMANABHAM MAHALAKSHMANNA ARYA VYSYA VRUDDASHRAMAM PALAKOL VS. CIT RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABAK 0150 H APPELLANT BY: SHRI S. RAMA RAO ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SIRI KUMAR DR ORDER PER SHRI B R BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT IN REJECTING THE APPLIC ATION SEEKING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AND RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80 G OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ITO (H.QRS.) HAS COMMUNICATED THE ORDER OF REJECTION BY WAY OF A LET TER. 2. WE NOTICE THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE COME UP BEFORE THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF SRI AYYAPPA SEVA SAMITHI TADEPALLIGUDAM IN ITA NO.376/VIZAG/2010 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN ITS ORDER DAT ED 19-8-2010 IS EXTRACTED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION U /S 80G OF THE I.T. ACT. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER WE FIND THAT THE ITO HAS INTIMATED THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AS THE ASSE SSEE TRUST IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 43(1) OF THE A.P. CHARI TABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ENROLMENT ACT 1987. WE ARE SURPRISED TO NOTE THAT HOW THE A.O. IN THE O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GOT THE JURISDICTION TO T AKE A DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G FI LED BY THE ASSESSEES. IT IS FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTIO N U/S 80G. THE OBSERVATION OF THE ITO THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEES IS NON-ADMISSIBLE IS HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE AND 2 UNCALLED FOR. WE THEREFORE ADVICE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO ADJUDICATE THE REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION M OVED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND NOT TO ALLOW HIS SUBOR DINATE TO ENCROACH UPON THE JURISDICTIONS WHICH IS CONFERRED TO HIM. 2. NOW COMING ON MERIT WE FIND THAT THIS APPLICATI ON FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G WAS NOT ENTERTAINED ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE THE REGISTRATION U/S 43( 1) OF THE A.P. CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ENROLMENT ACT 1987. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT IN THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH MAKE IT TO BE A CONDITION PRECE DENT FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR GETTING AN EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF TH E ACT. THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE A CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND THIS CAN BE EVIDENCED FROM T HE RECITAL PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. BEFORE GR ANTING A REGISTRATION IT IS FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO VERIFY FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHETHER THE SOCIETY OR A TRUST WAS CREATED FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE. WE THEREFO RE OF THE VIEW THAT REGISTRATION U/S 43(1) OF THE A.P. CHARIT ABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ENROLMENT ACT 1987 IS NOT REQUIRED BEFORE APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U /S 80G OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER PASSED ON BEHALF OF THE CIT AND DIRECT THE CIT TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVAN T PROVISIONS OF LAW BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO P LACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT NAGPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF AGRIC ULTURAL PRODUCE & MARKET COMMITTEE TELHARA & ORS. VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2005 ) 97 TTJ (NAG) 165; WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED THAT THERE IS NO REQU IREMENT TO FILE A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER NOR IS THERE ANY NECESSITY THAT THE INSTITUTION CLAIMING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA SHOULD BE REGISTERED WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID DECISION THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF ITAT HAS HELD VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05-3-2 010 IN THE CASE OF M/S KAMALAKAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST HYDERABAD VS. DIT IN ITA NO.1145/HYD/09 THAT MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRU ST IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A.P.CHARITABLE & HINDU RELI GIOUS INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT ACT 1987 SHALL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSEE T RUST AS A NON-CHARITABLE ONE. 4. ACCORDINGLY CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE CITED CASES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER PASSE D ON BEHALF OF THE CIT AND 3 DIRECT THE CIT TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN TH E LIGHT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-10-2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (BR BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 7 TH OCTOBER 2010 COPY TO 1 KARUMURI PADMANABHAM MAHALAKSHMAMMA ARYA VYSYA VR UDHASHRAMAM D.NO.40-1-34 KARUMURIVARI STREET PALAKOL 534 260 2 THE CIT RAJAHMUNDRY 3 THE CIT(A) RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM