M/s. Indian Tools Technology Centre,, Jalandhar v. The Commissioner of Income-tax,, Jalandhar

ITA 443/ASR/2012 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 44320914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AACCI3668M
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 443/ASR/2012
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Indian Tools Technology Centre,, Jalandhar
Respondent The Commissioner of Income-tax,, Jalandhar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 07-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 07-10-2013
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 04-12-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL PAN: AACCI3668M M/S INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY VS. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME CENTRE C/O- FORGING & CHEMICALS TAX-I JALANDHAR INDS. G.T. ROAD PATHANKOT BYE PASS JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL DR DATE OF HEARING: 07.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.10.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/25.09.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME- TAX-I JALANDHAR. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDE R SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 15.03. 2012 ALONG WITH A 2 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION SHOWING TH AT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN INCORPORATED ON 28.08.2010. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER SECTI ON 25 OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND IT HAS FILED A COPY OF ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND A LIST OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO ITS SHARE CAPITAL. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE COMPANY HAS BEEN STATED TO BE THE CREATION OF A COMMON FACILITY CENTRE FOR THE USE OF HAND TOOL MAN UFACTURERS THAT IS STATED TO CONTAIN FACILITIES FOR THE VARIOUS MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITIES SUCH AS FORGING HEAT TREATMENT PACKAGING TRAINING FINIS HING TESTING ETC. THIS FACILITY IS TO BE ACCESSED BY THE HAND TOOLS MANUFA CTURER UPON PAYMENT OF USER/SERVICE CHARGES THAT ARE TO BE DECIDED FROM TI ME TO TIME. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE THE COMPANY ALSO LISTS OUT VARIOUS AN CILLARY OBJECTIVES. 4. AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE AND ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE MATTER WAS ALSO DISCUSSED WITH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS CLAIM UNDER THE RESIDUAL LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE CONTAINED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT I.E. ENTITY W HOSE PURPOSE IS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT THOUGH 3 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 THE COMPANY SHALL BE CHARGING A USER FEE FOR ITS US AGE IT SHALL NOT BE WORKING WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE AND NONE OF THE OBJECT IVES OF THE COMPANY SHALL BE CARRIED OUT ON A COMMERCIAL BASIS. HE FURT HER STATED THAT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE MOTIVE OF TH E COMPANY IS NOT TO MAKE PROFITS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO STATED THAT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ONLY THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE TO BE SEEN AND NOT THE ACTUAL ACTIVITIES OF THE TRU ST AND HE REQUESTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT MAY BE GR ANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND IT TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR FI NALLY HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CHARITABLE BECAU SE THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERING ITS SERVICES TO THE USER UPON PAYMENT OF USAGE CHARGES; THEREFORE IT CEASES TO BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. UN DOUBTEDLY IT IS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE SERVICES ARE TO BE PROVID ED BY CHARGING FEES. CONSEQUENTLY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24 /25.09.2012. 4 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/25.09.2 012 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS BEEN SET UP UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE A COMPANY BY SHAR ES NOT FOR PROFIT UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956. IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FROM THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY THAT THE COMPANY HAD BE EN FORMED WITH NO PROFIT MOTIVE AND THE SAID OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY W ILL BE CARRIED OUT ON A NON-COMMERCIAL BASIS. THUS IN NO TERMS IT CAN BE S AID THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE IN THE NATURE OF EARNING PROFITS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGISTRATION OF TRUST ONLY THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE TO BE SEEN AND NOT THE ACTIVITIES. SINCE IN THE ABSENCE O F THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SHAPE OF LAND BUILDING MACHINERY AND PERSONS WITH TECHNICAL KNOW- HOW IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO START THE ACTIVITI ES AS HAVE BEEN ENSHRINED IN THE DEED. FURTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA ALL THE DETAILS AND INFORMATIONS AS HAD BEEN CALLED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE HIM TO HIS SATISFACTION. THE ONLY ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT IS THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJE CTS OF THE TRUST THAT ARE 5 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 TO BE SEEN AND NOT THE ACTIVITIES. IN SUPPORT OF HI S CONTENTION HE CITED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS/DECISIONS: I. HIMACHAL PRADESH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND POLLUTI ON CONTROL BOARD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPOR TED IN (2009) 28 DTR 289; II. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORTED IN (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC); III. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. HARYANA BUILDING & O THER CONSTRUCTION WORKS WELFARE BOARD REPORTED IN (2011 ) 52 DTR (P&H) 253 7. ON THE CONTRARY LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE IMPU GNED ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IN WHICH THE MEANING OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE HAS CLEARLY BEEN DESCRIBED AS CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR EDU CATION MEDICAL RELIEF {PREVENTION OF ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDIN G WATERSHEDS FORESTS AND WILDLIFE) AND PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OF PLAC ES OR OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST} AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE HAND TOOLS MANUFACTURERS CAN UTILIZE THE PROPOSED CFC OF THE COMPANY UPON PA YMENT OF USAGE CHARGES AND THAT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTO RS OF THE COMPANY WHO THEMSELVES ARE THE INDUSTRY LEADERS IN THIS SEGMENT . HE FURTHER STATED THAT IF THE USAGE ARE SO FIXED AS TO RECOVER THE BASIC C OST AND NOT TO MAKE ANY 6 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 PROFIT STILL AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2( 15) OF THE ACT IT CEASES TO BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE SINCE THIS PROVISO SPECIFI CALLY EXCLUDES ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE COM MERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A CESS OR FEES OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION IRRESPECTIV E OF THE NATURE OF USE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING SERVICES BY CHARGING FEES AND IF FEES ARE TO BE CHARGED THEN SUCH BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS PROHIBITED AMBIT OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES. LEARNED DR FINALLY ST ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING PROFITS BY DOING ITS BUSINESS FOR ITS ME MBERS BUT NOT FOR GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY THEREFORE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH US AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER RECORD ASSESSEE-COMPANY NAMED M/S INDIAN TOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE FILED ITS APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ON 15.03.2012 ALONG WITH A COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCO RPORATION SHOWING THAT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN INCORPORATED ON 28.08.2010 AND THE COPY OF ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ACCOMPANYING WITH A LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO 7 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 ITS SHARE CAPITAL. AFTER EXAMINING THESE DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDAHAR FIND THAT THE PRELIMINARY OBJECT OF THE COMPANY WAS SAID TO BE THE CREATION O F A COMMON FACILITY CENTRE FOR PROVIDING FACILITIES FOR VARIOUS MANUFAC TURING ACTIVITIES SUCH AS FORGING HEAT TREATMENT PACKAGING TRAINING FI NISHING TESTING ETC. TO HAND TOOL MANUFACTURERS UPON PAYMENT OF USER/SERVIC E CHARGES THAT ARE TO BE DECIDED FROM TIME TO TIME. ON THIS ISSUE A LIBE RTY OF BEING HEARD WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER HEARING THE AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE HAND TOOL MANUFACTURERS CAN UTILIZE THE PROPOSE D CFC OF THE COMPANY UPON PAYMENT OF USAGE CHARGES AND THAT SHAL L BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WHO THEMSELVES ARE THE INDUSTRY LEADERS IN THIS SEGMENT. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR HAS ALSO HELD THAT IF THE USAGE ARE SO FIXED AS TO RECO VER THE BASIC COST AND NOT TO MAKE ANY PROFIT STILL AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO T O SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IT CEASES TO BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE SINCE THIS PR OVISO SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE COMME RCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO AN Y TRADE COMMERCE OR 8 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 BUSINESS FOR A CESS OR FEES OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERAT ION IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES. FINALLY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHA R HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING ITS SERVICES BY CHARGING FEES . IN THE PROVISO OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT NOWHERE IT IS MENTIONED T HAT IF FEES IS TO BE CHARGED SO FIXED AS TO NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT THEN SU CH BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THIS PROHIBITED AMBIT OF CHARITAB LE PURPOSES. LASTLY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ALSO HELD THAT AN INSTITUTION SET UP WITH THE IDEA OF PROMOTING TRADE & COMMERCE WHICH MERELY REGULATES OR ENHANCES THE BUS INESS OF ITS MEMBERS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND CONSEQUENTLY HE REFUSED TO GRANT THE REGISTRATI ON TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 12A AS REQUESTED. LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAINLY EMPHASIZED UPON THE DECISION OF I.T .A.T. CHANDIGARH B BENCH IN THE CASE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX REPORTED IN (2009) 28 DTR 289. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE BECAUSE IN THE 9 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 AFORESAID CASE THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH I S A STATE BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER LAW FOR PREVENTION CONTROL AND A BATEMENT OF POLLUTION IS TO WORK FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WHICH QU ALIFIES TO BE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. IN THE C ASE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND POLLUTION CONTRO L BOARD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) I.T.A.T. CHANDIGARH B BENCH HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REGULATORY FUNCTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD AND ANY COLLECTION OF FEES OR CHARGES IN THE COURSE OF DISCHARGING THESE REGULATORY FUNCTIONS CANNOT BE VI EWED AS A CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING THESE SERVICES. 9. AS REGARDS TO OTHER CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL ARE NOT IDENTICAL BECAUSE IN THE RELIED UPON CASES THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR THE BENEFICIAL OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY AND FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROJECTION OF TRADE COMMERCE AND IND USTRY BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THESE CONDITIONS THEREFORE THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE ARE NOT HELPFUL IN THE PRESENT CASE. 10 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING REGISTR ATION UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956 WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 25 IS FOR THOSE COMPANIES WHICH ARE FORMED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROMOTING COMMERCE ART SCIENCE RELIGION CHARITY OR ANY OTHER USEFUL OBJECT AND IT SHOULD INTEND TO APPLY ITS PROFITS OR OTHER INCOMES ONLY IN PROMOTING ITS OBJECTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCE D ANY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS INCORPOR ATED NOT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE BUT FOR PROPAGATING A CAUSE FOR THE BENEFIT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR HA S RIGHTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION UN DER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. 11. FROM THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE- COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2011 WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS NOT INCURRED EVEN A SINGLE PENNY TO ACH IEVE ITS OBJECTS I.E. FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2011 O F THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: KUMAR ASHWANI & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 85-GREEN PARK COOL ROAD JALANDHAR CITY 11 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 PH.: 0181-2239270 5080270 M/S INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE G.T. ROAD PATHANKOT BYE PASS JALANDHAR INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 3 1.03.2011 ___________________________________________________ _____________ PARTICULARS SCHD. NO. AMOUNT (RS .) 31-MAR-11 INCOME OTHER INCOME 4 769 845.00 __________________ 4 769 845.00 EXPENDITURE ADVERTISEMENT 31 170.00 AUDIT FEE & PROFESSION CHARGES 55 150.00 BANK CHARGES AND INTEREST 1 397.00 COMPUTER EXPENSES 3 250.00 INTEREST ON TDS 21 407.00 LEGAL EXPENSES 4 426 260.00 MEETING EXPENSES 94 237.00 PRELIMINARY EXPENSES W/OFF 22 780.00 SEMINAR EXPENSES 12 233.00 TRAVELLING EXPENSES 367 928.00 ___________________ 5 035 812.00_ EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE BEFORE TAX ADJUSTMENTS (265 967 .00) LESS: PROVISION FOR TAXATION __________________ __ EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AFTER TAX & ADJUSTMENTS TRANSFERRED TO BALANCE SHEET. (265 967.00)_ AUDITORS REPORT: SUBJECT TO OUR REMARKS APPENDED AT THE FOOT OF BALANCE SHEET. 12 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 FOR INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE FOR KUMAR ASHWANI & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SD/- SD/- SD/- DIRECTOR DIRECTOR ASHWANI KUMA R PLACE: JALANDHAR PARTNER DATE: 30.08.2011 MEMBERSHIP NO. 87169 12. AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID INCOME AND EXPENDIT URE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2011 WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED MAJOR PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE I.E. RS. 4 426 260.00 ON LEGAL EXPENSES AND RS. 367 928.00 ON TRAVELLING EXPENSES OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE I.E. RS. 5 035 812.00 WHICH SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EXPENDITURE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES TO FUL FILL ITS OBJECTS. 13. AS PER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND SECTION 12 SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOM E OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNLESS SOME CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. O NE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CONDITIONS IS THAT ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTI ON SHOULD BE REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. SECTION 12AA OF THE A CT PRESCRIBES SOME PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION I.E. THE COMMISSIONER O N RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUT ION CAN CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE TRUST OR INSTITUT ION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GEN UINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH INQ UIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM 13 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 NECESSARY IN THIS BEHALF. IF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX IS SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION HE SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REGISTERING THE TRUST OR INSTIT UTION AND IF HE IS NOT SO SATISFIED SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REFUSING TO REGISTER THE TRUST OR INTUITION. THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF A TRUST ONLY THE OB JECTS OF THE TRUST ARE TO BE SEEN AND NOT THE ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND THUS THE SAME ARE NOT TENABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX-I JALANDHAR AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSING THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY ALONG WITH THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT REPRODUCED ABOVE WA S NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE WORK PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THESE ARE CONTRARY TO THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. 15. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPL AINED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX-I JALANDHAR HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER; THEREF ORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY WE D ISMISS THE APPEAL 14 I.T.A. NO. 443(ASR)/2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/25.09.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JAL ANDHAR. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH OCTOBER 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S INDIAN TOOLS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE C /O- FORGING & CHEMICALS INDS. G.T. ROAD PATHANKOT BYE PASS JAL ANDHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR 3. THE SR DR I.T.A.T. ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.