Shri Lalita Ashram Trust, Rohtak v. CIT, Rohtak

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH G DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JM AND SHRI K. D. RANJAN AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 4440 (DEL) OF 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ---- SHRI LALITA ASHRAM TRUST COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX C/O. NAVIN GUPTA ADV.; VS. R O H T A K . OLD POST OFFICE STREET R O H T A K 124 001 [HARYANA]. P A N / G I R NO. AAA AS 0978 A. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAVEEN GUPTA ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B. KISHORE SR. D. R. O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ROHTAK AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 80-G( 5) OF THE I. T. ACT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS CON STITUTED ON 14/10/1986. THE TRUST WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12-A OF THE ACT VIDE REGISTRATION DAT ED 20/01/1987. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS GIVEN REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G THE LATE ST RENEWAL WAS DATED 26 TH MAY 2006 FOR THE PERIOD 1/4/2004 TO 31 ST MARCH 2009. 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4440 (DEL) OF 2009 2. THE ASSESSEE TRUST VIDE APPLICATION DATED 21 ST APRIL 2009 IN PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 10-G SOUGHT RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G(5 ) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX NOTED THAT IN FINANCIAL YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION OF FUNDS ON FIXED ASSETS. THE TRUST HAD ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL ASSETS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY IT. THE LD. CIT THEREFORE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DOUBLE DEDUCTION ONE ACCOUNT OF APPLICATION OF FUNDS ON FIXED ASSETS AND THE OTHER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. T HE LD. CIT RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. & OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 99 ITR 44 (SC) OBSERVED THAT DOUBLE DEDUCTION IN REGARD TO THE SAM E BUSINESS OUTGOINGS WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE UNLESS CLEARLY EXPRESSED. HE WAS THER EFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE INCLUDIBLE IN ITS TOTAL INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DOUBLE DEDUCTION THIS WOULD DISQUALIFY THE TRUST F OR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80-G(5)(VI) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE OF CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION 5 OF SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS COLLECTING ANONYMOUS DONATIONS. THE DETAILS SUBMITTED SHOWED THAT RS.6 42 800/- WAS COLLECTED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 FOR WHICH RECEIPTS WERE ISSUED WITHOUT GIVI NG ANY NAME AND ADDRESS OF DONORS. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ANONYMOUS DONATIONS WERE TREATE D AS SPECIFIC DONATIONS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF DONORS WERE NOT THERE ON T HE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE TRUST. SUCH DONATIONS WERE LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL I NCOME AND WILL BE TAXED AT THE RATE OF 30 PER CENT UNDER SECTION 115-BBC(1)(I) OF THE ACT WITH EF FECT FROM 1/04/2007. THE LD. CIT FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD INCURRED AN EXPEN SE OF RS.2 40 167/- ON MANDIR POOJA DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2008 WHICH EXCEEDED 5 PER CENT OF THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE TRUST. THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-G(5) OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE TRUST WAS REQUIRED TO SPE ND 85 PER CENT OF INCOME FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. IN FINANCIA L YEAR 2005-06 THE APPLICATION OF INCOME WAS LESS THAN 85 PER CENT OF THE INCOME EVEN AFTER GIVI NG THE CREDIT OF RS.13 08 978/- INCURRED TOWARDS FIXED ASSETS OF THE TRUST. HE ALSO NOTED T HAT THE BALANCE SHEETS AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2006; 31 ST MARCH 2007 AND 31 ST MARCH 2008 REVEALED THAT THE TRUST HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CORPUS DONATION AT RS.95 23 746/- RS.58 70 172/- A ND RS.40 60 456/- RESPECTIVELY BUT COULD NOT 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4440 (DEL) OF 2009 PRODUCE EVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER AS SPECIFIC DI RECTION FROM THE RESPECTIVE CORPUS DONORS AS PER SECTION 11(1)(B) OF THE ACT. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRUST HAD DIVERTED THE FUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT TO THE EXTENT OF 85 PER CENT FOR THE WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TOWARDS CORPUS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO F URNISH THE REPLY BUT NO SUCH REPLY WAS GIVEN. THE LD. COMMISSIONER FURTHER NOTED THAT A LOCKER FO R THE TRUST WAS OPENED IN ALLAHABAD BANK BRINDAVAN IN THE NAME OF THREE TRUSTEES. IT MEANS THE MODES OF INVESTMENT OF FUNDS OF THE TRUST WERE NOT TRANSPARENT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 1(5) OF THE ACT. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONTENTS OF LOCKER WERE INCLUDIBLE IN THE INCOME OF THE TRUST AND WERE TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(D)(I) OF THE ACT WHICH DISQUALIFIED THE TRUST FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80-G(5). THE LD. CIT FURTHER NOTED THAT EXEMPTION OR RENEWAL OF A TR UST IS NOT AUTOMATIC AND HAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIRTI CHAND TARAWATI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DIT [EXEMPTION] 232 ITR 11 (DEL). HE ALSO PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GAJAMNAGAPPA & SONS SOCIETY VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (E) 269 ITR 59 (KAR.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT GRANT OF EXEMPTION WAS SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO THE RE NEWAL. THE LD. COMMISSIONER ACCORDINGLY WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR REN EWAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80-G READ WITH RULE 11-AA OF THE I. T. RULES 1962. 4. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO ACT AS ASSESSIN G OFFICER. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G IS WHETH ER THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE CHARITABLE. THE TRUST WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12-A IN 1986 AND REGISTRATION HAD BEEN GRANTED UNDER SECTION 80-G FOR SEVERAL YEARS TILL 3 1 ST MARCH 2009. AS REGARDS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON MANDIR POOJA IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. CIT HAS CONSIDERED THE NET INCOME FROM GAUSHALA WHEREAS THE ACTUAL INCOME FROM GAUSHA LA WAS RS.22 30 771/-. IF THE DONATIONS RECEIVED IN GAUSHALA IS TAKEN WITH INTEREST RECEIPT THE TOTAL INCOME COMES TO RS.48 68 989/-. THE EXPENDITURE ON MANDIR POOJA AT RS.2 43 450/- THUS C OMES TO 4.93 PER CENT WHICH IS LESS THAN 5 PER CENT SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 80-G(5) OF THE ACT . AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION OF INCOME AND OTHER OBJECTIONS THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT SUCH AN OBJECTION CANNOT BE MADE AT 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4440 (DEL) OF 2009 THE TIME OF RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION. HE PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF KALYANAM KAROTI VS. CIT 123 I.T.D. 3 70 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHILE GRANTING RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80-G(5) OR CONTI NUATION THEREOF THE COMMISSIONER HAS ONLY TO SEEK WHETHER THE SOCIETY FULFILLS CONDITIONS LAI D DOWN IN CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SECTION 80-G(5) AND NOT WHETHER CERTAIN RECEIPTS I.E. VOLUNTARILY D ONATIONS ARE PROPERLY EXPLAINED OR NOT. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. CIT 278 ITR 262 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY ARE CHARITABLE THE REGISTRAT ION CANNOT BE DENIED. HE ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N. N. DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT 246 ITR 452 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE AUTHORITY GRAN TING APPROVAL CANNOT ACT AS ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE ENQUIRY SHOULD BE CONFINED TO FIND OUT IF THE I NSTITUTION SATISFIED THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS. THE ACTUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE INSTITUTION WOULD NOT AFFECT CLAIM FOR RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80- G OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. DR S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER REJECTING THE REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TRUST HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12-A SINCE ITS INCEPTION AND HAD BEEN ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF REGI STRATION SECTION 80-G UPTO 31 ST MARCH 2009. UNDER SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT A DEDUCTION IS ALLOW ED TO AN ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING HIS TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF DONATIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-G. CLAUSE (IV) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-G TALKS ABOUT THE DONATIONS TO ANY INSTITUTION OR COLLEGE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED IN INDIA FOR A CHARIT ABLE PURPOSE AND FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT NAME LY (I) WHERE THE INSTITUTION FOR FUND DERIVES ANY INCOME SUCH INCOME WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO BE I NCLUSION IN HIS TOTAL INCOME UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OR CLAUSE 23-AA OR CLAUSE 23-C OF SECTION 10 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN PROVISO TO THIS CLAUSE; ( II ) THE INSTRUMENT UNDER WHICH THE INSTITUTION OR FUN D IS CONSTITUTED DOES NOT OR THE RULES GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION OR FUND DO NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION FOR THE TRANSFER OR APPLICATION AT ANY TIME OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE INCOME OR ASSETS OF THE INSTITUTION OR FUND FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN A CH ARITABLE PURPOSE; ( III ) THE INSTITUTION OR FUND IS NOT EXPRESSED TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTI CULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CASTE; ( IV ) THE 5 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4440 (DEL) OF 2009 INSTITUTION OR FUND MAINTAINS REGULAR ACCOUNTS OF I TS RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE; ( V ) THE INSTITUTION OR FUND IS EITHER CONSTITUTED AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE T RUST OR IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860 (21 OF 1860) OR UNDER ANY L AW CORRESPONDING TO THAT ACT IN FORCE IN ANY PART OF INDIA OR UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 (1 OF 1956) OR IS A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR IS ANY OTHER EDUCATIONAL INS TITUTION RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR BY A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR AFFILIATED TO ANY UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR IS AN INSTITUTION FINANCED WHOLLY OR IN PART BY THE GOVER NMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY; AND ( VI ) IN RELATION TO DONATIONS MADE AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 1992 THE INSTITUTION OR FUND IS FOR THE TIME BEING APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES MADE IN THIS BEHALF. 5.1 SUB SECTION 5B CONTAINS NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE AC CORDING TO WHICH WHERE AN INSTITUTION OR FUND INCURS EXPENDITURE DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR WH ICH IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE FOR AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING 5 PER CENT OF ITS TOTAL INCOME IN THAT PR EVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN INSTITUTION OR FUND TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHA LL APPLY. IT MEANS WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE EXCEEDING 5 PER CENT OF ITS TOTAL I NCOME ON RELIGIOUS PURPOSES THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-G WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. EXPLANATION- 3 TO SECTION 80-G DEFINES THE SCOPE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND MEANS THAT CHARITABLE PURPOS E DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PURPOSE THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE OF WHICH IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE. THEREFORE WHERE THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE S EITHER UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (5) OR UNDER EXPLANATION 3 ANY OF THE PURPOSE THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE OF IT OF WHICH IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION WILL N OT QUALIFY FOR RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THEREFORE UNDER SUB SECTION (5) IF THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED ON A RELIGIOUS NATURE IS LESS THAN 5 PER CENT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80G WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM GAUSHALA IS AT RS.22 30 77 1/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST AT RS.26 38 214/-. THUS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS AT RS.48 68 989/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDIT URE OF RS.2 40 167/- ON MANDIR POOJA THE EXPENDITURE OF RELIGIOUS NATURE IS THUS 4.93 PER CE NT WHICH IS LESS THAN 5 PER CENT. THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS INCURRED MORE THAN 5 PER CENT EXPENDITURE OF RELIGIOUS NATURE IS NOT CORRECT. IT APPEARS HE HAS TAKEN THE NET INCOME FROM GAUSHALA AT RS.12 79 269/- AND INTEREST INCOME OF R S.26 38 218/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION 6 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4440 (DEL) OF 2009 OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON MANDIR POOJA. THEREFORE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED ON THIS GROUND. 6. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUES THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD CLAIMED DOUBLE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SAME ASSETS OR THE INCOME HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED TO T HE EXTENT OF 85 PER CENT OF THE INCOME FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT AT THE T IME OF GRANTING OF REGISTRATION OR RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT. HON'BL E PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY (SUP RA) HAS HELD THAT IN CONSTRUING THE PURPOSE OF A TRUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTI ON 80-G OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 IT IS IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT THE REAL PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE TRUST RATHER THAN JUST RELYING ON THE OBJECTS MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OR THE TRUST DEED OF THE TR UST. IF THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE CHARITABLE APPROVAL SHOUL D NOT BE DENIED ON MERE TECHNICALITIES. REGISTRATION OF AN INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12-A O F THE ACT IS SUFFICIENT TO OF ITS BEING ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IN THE INSTAN T CASE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON DENYING THE CONTINUATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G WHEN THE ASSESSEE H AD ENJOYED SUCH BENEFIT FOR LAST 25 YEARS. 7. HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N. N. DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CANNOT ACT AS ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ENQUIRY SHOULD BE CONFINED TO FIND OUT IF THE INSTITUTION SATISFIES T HE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS. THE ACTUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE INSTITUTION WOULD NOT AFFECT THE CLAIM FOR R EGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT. LIKEWISE ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF KALYAN AM KAROTI HAS HELD THAT NEITHER IN THE MAIN SUB SECTION (5) N OR RULES MADE THEREUNDER THERE IS ANY PROVISION TO REFUSE RECOGNITION OR CONTINUATION THE REOF ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT PARTICULARS OF DONORS ARE NOT PROVIDED BY THE INSTITUTION FOR FUND NON-AVAILABILITY OF PARTICULARS MAY EMPOWER THE AO TO INVOKE SECTION 115-BBC READ WITH SECTION 13(7) WHICH ARE AFFECTIVE FROM 1/04/2007 WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIETY. BUT SO FAR AS THE RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80-G(5) IS CONCERNED THEY HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY. 7 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4440 (DEL) OF 2009 8. IF THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TESTED ON THE RATIO OF AFORESAID DECISIONS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LD. COMMISSIONER CANNOT DENY THE RENEW AL OF REGISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DOUBLE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION AS WELL AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR HAD NOT APPLIED THE REQUISITE INCOME FOR THE OBJ ECTS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CERTAIN DEPRECIATION TO WHICH IT WAS NOT ENTITLED THE RECOG NITION UNDER SECTION 80-G CANNOT BE DENIED. AS REGARDS THE MAINTENANCE OF LOCKER THE LD. COMMI SSIONER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE TRUST WAS KEPT IN SUCH LOCKERS. THE LOCKERS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR KEEPING THE VALUABLES OF THE TRUST. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LOCKER WAS MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING UN-ACCOUNTED INCOME OF T HE TRUST. THE PRESUMPTION ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING THE CONTINUATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT. THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE ALSO CHARITABLE IN CHARACTER. THE TRUST HAS BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12-A OF THE ACT FOR LAST 25 YEARS. THEREFO RE CONTINUATION OF REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN RIGHTLY REFUSED BY THE LD. CIT. WE ACCORDINGLY ARE OF THE VIEW THAT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80- G OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE. WE TH EREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REFUSING THE REGISTRATIO N AND DIRECT THE LD. COMMISSIONER TO ALLOW THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80-G OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIOD APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 30 TH APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- [ RAJPAL YADAV ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : _30 TH APRIL 2010 . *MEHTA * 8 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4440 (DEL) OF 2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT (APPEALS) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT.