Saraswathi Swetha Educational Trust, CHENNAI v. DIT, CHENNAI

ITA 495/CHNY/2011 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 49521714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAKTS1757L
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 495/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant Saraswathi Swetha Educational Trust, CHENNAI
Respondent DIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 09-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 31-01-2012
Next Hearing Date 31-01-2012
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 15-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 M/S SARASWATHI SWETHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.1 MAHALINGAM CHETTY ST. NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 034. PAN : AAKTS1757L (APPELLANT) V. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CHENNAI - 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. PADMANABHAN CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. REN GARAJAN JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 31.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.02.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT ASSAILS AN ORDER DATED 26.11.2010 OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CHENNAI DENYING IT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AND APPR OVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPLICATIONS ON 3.5.2010 FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AND FO R APPROVAL UNDER I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 2 SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. CERTAIN CLARIFICATIONS WER E REQUIRED WHICH WERE FURNISHED. AFTER VERIFYING THE RECORDS PRODUC ED BY THE ASSESSEE DIT(E) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRUST HAD NOT STARTED ANY SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO HIM GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATISFIED. HE THEREFORE REJECTED BOTH THE APPLICATIONS FOR REGIS TRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AS WELL AS FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF T HE ACT. 3. NOW BEFORE US LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE O BJECTS WERE OF PURELY CHARITABLE AND DENIAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AS ALSO APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT WAS UNJU STIFIED. JUST BECAUSE ACTIVITIES DID NOT COMMENCE THE REQUIRED R EGISTRATION AND APPROVAL OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED. 4. PER CONTRA LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. DIT(E) AND SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE STARTING ITS ACTIV ITIES AN ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM AS A MATTER OF RIGHT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OR AN APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. 5. IN REPLY LEARNED A.R. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) V. MEENA KSHI AMMA ENDOWMENT TRUST (2011) 50 DTR (KAR) 243 SUBMITTED THAT ACTIVITIES I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 3 OF THE TRUST WOULD BE RELEVANT ONLY IF REGISTRATION WAS SOUGHT LONG AFTER THE FORMATION OF THE TRUST. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS FOUND BY A DEED OF TRUST DATED 3 RD MAY 2010. IT HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AND FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT ON 3.5.2010 ITSELF. I N OTHER WORDS THE APPLICATIONS WERE MADE TO THE DIT(E) ON THE VERY SA ME DAY WHEN TRUST DEED WAS DECLARED. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT WHICH PREVENTS AN ASSESSEE FROM MAKING APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATI ON UNDER SECTION 12AA AND FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT IMMEDIATELY ON ITS FORMATION. IN THE CASE OF MEENAKSHI AMMA ENDOW MENT TRUST (SUPRA) HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CLEARLY HELD THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAD TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF REGISTRATION WAS SOUGHT LONG AFTER THE FORMATION OF THE TRUST. IN THE SAID CASE THE TRUST WAS FOUND ON 23 RD JANUARY 2008 WITH A CONTRIBUTION OF ` 1000/- BY EACH OF THE TRUSTEES AND IT HAD SOUGHT REGISTRATION WITH DIT(E) ON 31 ST OCTOBER 2008. THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION IT COULD NOT BE EXPECTED THAT THE TRUST WOULD CARRY OUT ANY CHARITA BLE ACTIVITY DURING THE SHORT SPAN OF NINE MONTHS AND FOR THIS REASON THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY COULD NOT COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE T RUST WAS NOT INTENDING TO DO ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. HERE IN THE GIVEN CASE BEFORE I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 4 US ALSO THE DIT(E) HAS NOT DISPUTED THE CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECI SION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE MEENAKSHI AMMA END OWMENT TRUST (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AS WELL AS FOR APPR OVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. 7. IN FACT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN A DECISION DATED 19.10.2011 TO WHICH ONE OF US WAS A PARTY (M/ S M.L. MEYYAPPAN CHARITABLE TRUST V. DIT(E) IN I.T.A. NOS. 2073 & 2074/MDS/2010) ON A SIMILAR FACT SITUATION HELD A S UNDER AT PARAS 7 TO 23 OF THE ORDER:- 7. AFTER COGITATING THE RIVAL STANDS WE FIND THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND SUBTLE ISSUE WHICH NEEDS CAREFUL ADJU DICATION. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THE DIT(E) HA S TO SATISFY HIMSELF REGARDING THE CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE OBJECTS AND ALSO TO JUDGE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST IF THESE ARE BEING CARRIED ON IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECTS OR NOT. FOR THAT PURPOSE HE MAY CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION FROM THE TRUST OR IN STITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY. IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOU T THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST (OR INSTITUTION) HE MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH ENQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THIS REGARD. HE HAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTI ON AND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES AND ONLY THEREAFTER H E HAS TO TAKE HIS DECISION EITHER TO GRANT OR REFUSE REGISTRATION. I N SUCH A SCENARIO IT BECOMES IMPERATIVE TO EXAMINE THIS LEGAL TANGLE VER Y MINUTELY. THE DIT(E) HAS IN A WAY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I N CASE THE TRUST HAS NOT COMMENCED ITS ACTIVITIES THE GENUINENESS OF IT S ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO ITS OBJECTS CANNOT BE EXAMINED AND CONSE QUENTLY THE TRUST CANNOT BE REGISTERED U/S 12AA. HENCE HE HAS LAID D OWN A LEGAL I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 5 POSITION THAT A TRUST (OR INSTITUTION) CAN BE REG ISTERED UNDER THE ACT ONLY AFTER IT HAS STARTED ITS ACTIVITIES; O R TO PUT IT IN OTHER WORDS THAT NO TRUST (OR INSTITUTION) CAN BE REGISTE RED U/S 12AA BEFORE IT STARTS ITS ACTIVITIES. A TRUST CAN APPL Y FOR REGISTRATION ONLY AFTER IT HAS DONE SUFFICIENT ACTIVITIES. THAT IS W HY WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL. IT IS NOT THAT THIS ISSUE HA S ARISEN FOR THE FIRST TIME RATER IT HAS ARISEN IN PAST IN MANY FORMS AND FACETS. THE COURTS/TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED AND DECIDED THE SAME IN UMPTEEN CASES. WE ARE ANALYZING THEM IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 8. ALMOST SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH IN WHICH ONE OF US [JM] WAS IN THE BENCH. IN THE CASE OF WOMEN DEVELOPMENT & EDUCATIONAL TRUST (WET) VS CIT IN I.T .A.NO. 227/MDS/2009 ORDER DATED 9.10.2009 THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT CARRYING ON OF ACTIVITIES BY THE TRUST IS NOT A PRE-CONDITION FOR GRANT OF SUCH REGISTRATION. PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER I S VERY CATEGORICAL AND IS BEING EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE: 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUPPLEMENTARY TRUST DEED AND ARE SATISFIED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE ONLY CHARITABLE IN NATURE. IT IS TRITE THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN THE PAST OR APPLICATION O F FUNDS OF THE TRUST ARE NOT AT ALL RELEVANT FACTORS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COU RT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NEW LIFE IN EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION VS CIT 246 ITR 532 . THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF ONLY AFTER EXAMINING THE O BJECTS OF THE TRUST. FROM THE READING OF THE ABOVE IT BECOMES CLEAR THA T APPLICATION OF FUNDS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR CARRYING ON I TS ACTIVITIES IS NOT RELEVANT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OR REFUSAL OF REGISTR ATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 6 9. WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF RAMAJUNAM MEMORIAL TR UST VS CIT IN I.T.A.NO. 340/MDS/2009 ORDER DATED 24.7.2009 A NOTHER CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER IS RELEVANT AND IS BEING EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW IN TOT O: AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN SO FAR AS THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE T RUST ARE CONCERNED THESE ARE DEFINITELY CHARITABLE IN NATUR E. THE LD. CIT HAS EVEN NOT DISPUTED THAT FACT. AS FAR A S ALLEGED ACTIVITY OF COLLECTING FEES FROM THE PARENTS OF THE STUDENTS AND THEREAFTER DONATING THE SAME TO RUN A SCHOOL WHICH WAS IN DISTRESS CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN UNCHARITABLE ACTIVITY. THE LD. CIT HAS STRETCHED T HE TRUTHFUL SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE TRU ST TOO FAR TO CONCLUDE THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT PURSUING CHA RITABLE ACTIVITIES. THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE DETRIMANT FACTORS WHICH ARE RELEVANT AT THE STAGE OF GRANTING OR REFUSING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IS BY AND LARGE SETT LED THAT AT THIS STAGE ONLY THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AR E TO BE LOOKED INTO AND NOT THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS. THE LD. CIT HAS NOT DOUBTED THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND ONLY O N THE BASIS OF APPLICATION OF THE FUNDS OF THE TRUST HE H AS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINELY CHARITABLE. WE DIFFER FROM HIS FINDING AND CONCLUDE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF HELPING THE CAUSE OF EDUCATION IS DEFINITELY A CHARITABLE ACTIV ITY AND ONCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF T HE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST THE LD. CIT CANNOT TAKE SHELTER OF ANY IRRELEVANT REASONING FOR REFUSING REGISTRAT ION AS HE CANNOT LOOK INTO THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS AT THE TIME OF DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12 AA OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD SUPPORT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARIDEVJI GAUSHALA TRUST VS CIT (2008) 119 TTJ (AGRA) 981 [OR (2008) 24 SOT 14] A COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED BY LD. AR AND IN DECIDING THAT CASE ONE OF US (JM) WAS A PART Y. IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD IN THAT CASE THAT APPLICATION OF INCOME AT THE STAGE OF SECTION 12AA IS NOT RELEV ANT TILL ITS OBJECTS ARE CHARITABLE. THE LD. CIT HAS NOT MADE I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 7 OUT THE CASE OF REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION AND IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS OF THE CASE KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBJECT S OF THE TRUST THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS ENTITLED TO REGIST RATION U/S 12AA. ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT TO GR ANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AS PER LAW. IN THE ABOVE DECISION ALSO ONE OF US [JM] WAS A PAR TY. THE ABOVE FINDING IS CATEGORICAL ON THE ISSUE AND IT WOULD BE NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THE DECISION WAS TAKEN AFTER THE AMEND ED PROVISIONS. 10. LIKEWISE SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY BOTH OF U S WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF JEROME EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS THE ADDL. C IT IN I.T.A.NO. 1265/MDS/08 ORDER DATED 7.12.2009 OF WHICH PARA 3 IS RELEVANT AND IS BEING EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: 3. ON MERITS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT HAS NO T PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER THEREFORE THE ENTIRE MATT ER IS RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION THA T AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE A CT APPLICATION OF THE FUNDS AND THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR CONSIDERATION AND AT THAT STAGE ONLY THE OBJECTS HA VE TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER THESE ARE CHARITABLE IN NATU RE OR NOT. HENCE WE RESTORE THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT FOR TAKING A FRESH DECISION AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. IN THE ABOVE DECISION IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD THA T APPLICATION OF FUNDS AND CARRYING ON OF ACTIVITIES BY TRUST ARE NO T RELEVANT AT THE STAGE OF CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATI ON U/S 12AA. 11. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH IN WHICH ONE OF US [HON'BLE AM] WAS A PARTY WHILE DECIDING T HE CASE OF M/S REHOBOTH EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST VS ITO IN I.T .A.NOS.2037 & 2038/MDS/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 9.6.2011. PARAGRAP H 5 OF THIS ORDER IS RELEVANT AND IS BEING EXTRACTED HEREIN BEL OW: WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. LD. CIT HAD REFUSED GRANTING REGISTRA TION TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AN D APPROVAL SOUGHT UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT HOLDI NG I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 8 THAT AN APPLICATION EARLIER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED AND THE NEW APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECTIFY THE DEFICIENCIES MENTIONED IN THE EARLIER ORDER REFUSING THE REGISTRATION. NO DOUBT AN ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH ITS GENUINENESS AND A CIT VIDE SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 12AA IS EMPOWERED TO CAL L FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION FROM TRUST SO AS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES. NEVERTHELESS WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES APPLICATIONS WERE REJECTED FOR A SOLE RE ASON THAT IT COULD NOT ESTABLISH WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE CIT THAT OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WERE NON- CHARITABLE IN NATURE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-VISIT BY THE CIT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT REFUSING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AND REFUSING APPROV AL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT AND REMIT THE ISSUES B ACK TO HIS FILE FOR DISPOSAL DE NOVO . ASSESSEE HAS TO CO- OPERATE AND FURNISH THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY LD. CIT AND PROVE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES. LD. CIT S HALL PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE VERY READING OF THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH MAKES IT CL EAR THAT IN A WAY STARTING OF ACTIVITIES BY TRUST IS NOT RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE IMPUGNED ISSUE. 12. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ANOTHER CO- ORDINATE BENCH (CONSTITUTED BY SHRI N.S.NAINI HON'BLE AM AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN HON'BLE JM) IN THE CASE OF ADHYAPANA TRUST VS ITO IN I.T.A.NOS.1575 & 1576/MDS/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 21 .7.2011. PARA 7 OF THIS ORDER IS RELEVANT AND THE SAME IS BEING EXT RACTED VERBATIM AS UNDER :- WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT FOR A PERSON BEING A TRUSTEE OF A CHARITABLE TRUST IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT SUCH PERSON SHOULD BE FINANCIALLY WE LL OFF OR SHOULD POSSESS CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIO NS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LD. CIT HAS NOT DOUBTED ABOUT THE I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 9 GENUINENESS OF OR IDENTITY OF ANY OF THE TRUSTEES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE CAPACITY OR THE COMP ETENCE OF THE TRUSTEE IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE SET TLER AND WILLINGNESS OF THE TRUSTEE AND IT IS NOT FOR THE RE VENUE TO PRESCRIBE AS TO WHO IS COMPETENT TO RUN OR MANAGE T HE CHARITABLE TRUST OR NOT. FURTHER WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY OBJECT CONTAINED IN THE TRUST DEED OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHICH WAS NOT CHAR ITABLE IN NATURE. MERELY BECAUSE THERE WERE SEVERAL OBJEC TS OF A TRUST AND THAT THE SEVERAL OBJECTS WERE NOT INTER- CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER DOES NOT MEAN THAT EITHER THE OBJECTS WERE NOT CHARITABLE OR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A CHARITABLE TRUST. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION FOR A CHA RITABLE TRUST TO CARRY OUT DIFFERENT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES EVEN WHEN SUCH DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES ARE NOT INTERCONNECT ED WITH EACH OTHER. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LD. CIT HAS NOT FOUND EITHER FROM THE ACTIVITY REPORT OR THE ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ANY FUND WAS UTILIZED FOR ANY NON CHARITABLE ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE. FURTHER WE FIND TH AT THE LD. CIT COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO S HOW THAT THE FUND OR INCOME OF THE TRUST WAS UTILIZED F OR PERSONAL PURPOSES OF A SETTLER OR TRUSTEE OR ANY OT HER PRIVATE PERSON. IN RESPECT OF HIS OBSERVATION REGARDING NON UTILIZATION OF FUND FOR ANY PURPOSE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS IS A MATTER WHICH IS TO BE LOOKED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF MAKING ASSESSMENT AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIND S THAT ANY AMOUNT LESS THAN 85% OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES THE N THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS THE SAME AS PER LAW AND FOR THAT PURPOSE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA CANN OT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT FILED BEFORE US COPY OF TRUST DEED ACTIVITY REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUST. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE MATERIAL BEFORE US WE HAVE NO OPTION B UT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT FOR ADJUDICATING AFRESH IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 10 HEREINBEFORE AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 13. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING IT BECOMES MANIFEST THA T ALTHOUGH THE CIT HAS POWER TO EXAMINE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUS T BUT HE CAN EXAMINE THE ACTIVITIES ONLY IF THE ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN STARTED SO THAT HE CAN SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ITS OBJECTS SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO LOOK INTO THESE ASPECTS WH ILE MAKING REGULAR ASSESSMENT. IN CASE WE UPHOLD THE VIEW THAT REGIST RATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT HAS TO BE GRANTED ONLY AFTER EXAMINING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST THEN IN THAT CASE ONCE A TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA ITS ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE AGAIN LOOKED INTO AT THE TIME OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND THE CERTIFICATE FOR REGISTRATION WO ULD BE ENOUGH TO CLAIM BENEFITS OF SECTIONS 11 12 & 13 ETC. BUT T HIS IS ACTUALLY NOT A CORRECT PREPOSITION AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXAMINE THE ENTIRE FACTS RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUS T WHICH WERE CARRIED OUT IN A GIVEN RELEVANT YEAR TO COME TO A CONCLUSI ON IF IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS EXEMPTION OR NOT. 14. WHILE DECIDING SIMILAR ISSUE ANOTHER CO-ORD INATE BENCH (IN WHICH ONE OF US [JM] WAS IN THE BENCH ALONGWITH SHRI B. R AMAKOTAIAH HON'BLE AM) IN THE CASE OF JITO CHENNAI CHAPTER VS WARD ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IN 1468 & 1469/ MDS/2010 ORDER DATED 8.2.2011 HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. PA RAGRAPH 4 OF THIS ORDER IS RELEVANT AND IS BEING EXTRACTED HEREIN BEL OW: FROM THE READING OF SECTION 12AA WE NOTE THAT THE ONLY DUTY OF THE CIT WAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT T HE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW LIFE I N CHRIST EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION VS CIT AND ANOTHER (2000) 246 ITR 532(MAD) HAS HELD THAT AT THE STAGE OF GRANT OF CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE AC T THE ONLY ENQUIRY WHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE MADE WOULD BE WHETHER THE SOCIETY HAS ACTUALLY MADE AN APPLICATIO N IN TIME AND WHETHER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY ARE MAINTAINED IN THE MANNER AS SUGGESTED BY THE SAID SECTION AND BEYOND THAT THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY WOULD NOT GO. EVEN THOUGH IT IS RENDERED UNDER SECTION 12A WHEN PROCEDURAL SECTION 12AA WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN T HE STATUTE BOOK WE FEEL THAT THE RATIO IS EQUALLY I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 11 APPLICABLE EVEN AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION 12AA ALSO BECAUSE IT IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL SECTION. IN O UR VIEW CIT HAS GONE INTO UNNECESSARY DETAILS INSTEAD OF LOOKING INTO THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF T HE TRUST WITH REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY HIM . IN OTHER WORDS THE DIT(E) HAS GONE ASTRAY FROM THE NORMS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 12AA. IN THIS VIEW OF T HE MATTER WE DIRECT DIT(E) TO GRANT REGISTRATION UNDE R SECTION 12AA AND APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. 15. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS CLEARLY HELD THA T THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF N EW LIFE IN CHRIST EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION VS CIT & ANOTHER (SUPRA) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AT THE STAGE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATIO N U/S 12A OF THE ACT THE ONLY ENQUIRY WHICH CAN POSSIBLY BE MADE WO ULD BE WHETHER THE SOCIETY HAS ACTUALLY MADE AN APPLICATION IN TIM E AND WHETHER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY ARE MAINTAINED IN THE MANNE R AS SUGGESTED BY THIS SECTION. BEYOND THAT THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY WOU LD NOT GO. THE BENCH HAS FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WAS RENDERED U/S 12A WHEN PROCEDURAL S ECTION 12AA WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE STATUTE BOOK YET THE RATIO DEC IDENDI OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT(SUPRA) WOULD EQUALLY APPLY EVEN A FTER INSERTION OF SECTION 12AA BECAUSE IT IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL SECTIO N. 16. ANOTHER DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH IS IN THE CASE OF MADURAYELERUKKUM VIRUDHUNAGAR HINDU NADARGA L MARUTHUVAMANAI VS ITO IN I.T.A.NO. 1623/MDS/2010 ORDER DATED 10.10.2010 IN WHICH ONE OF US [JM] WAS A PARTY. I N SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THIS VERY ISSUE HAS BEEN CLEARLY CHU RNED WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. PARAGRAPH 4 OF THIS ORDER IS RELEVANT A ND IS BEING EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW VERBATIM: IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COM PLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2008- 09. THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO PERUSED THE CASH BOOK LEDGER VOUCHERS ETC. WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS F ILED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AS DIRECTED BY TH E LD. CIT. COPY OF THE AUDITORS REPORTS FOR THE YEARS EN DING I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 12 31.3.2007 31.3.2008 AND 31.3.2009 ARE ALSO PLACED BEFORE US FOR OUR PERUSAL. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL TH ESE DOCUMENTS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE LD. CIT HAS GOT THE POWER TO EXAMINE THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIET Y FOR REGISTRATION PURPOSES BUT THE OVERWHELMING JUD ICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IS THAT IF THE OBJECTS AS MENTIONED I N THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF A SOCIETY OR TRUST IS FOUND TO BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA SHOULD INVARIABLY BE GRANTED AND THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS AND THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED AT THE TIME OF MAKING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. CIT HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY ARE CHARIT ABLE IN NATURE BUT THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY COULD NOT BE EX HIBITED ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT W HEN THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE THE SOCIETY MUST BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/ S 12AA OF THE ACT. BUT WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS ARE CONSIDERE D THE ASPECT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ALLOWING EXE MPTION FROM TAX MAY BE DEEPLY SCRUTINIZED AND CONSIDERED INTO. CONSEQUENTLY WE ORDER THE LD. CIT TO GRANT REGISTR ATION U/S 12AA TO THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. 17. IN THIS GIVEN CASE ALSO THE OBJECTS OF TH E TRUST ARE FOUND TO BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE STILL THE REGISTRATION HA S BEEN REFUSED ONLY BECAUSE THE TRUST HAS NOT STARTED ITS ACTIVITIES WH ICH ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE DECISIONS IS NOT NECESSARY AT THE TIME O F CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 18. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY ANOTHER CO-ORDINA TE BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF DR.SOUNDARAM TRUST VS ITO IN I .T.A.NO. 1551/MDS/2009 ORDER DATED 17.2.2010. THERE ARE PL ETHORA OF SIMILAR DECISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY CO-ORDINATE BENC HES NOT ONLY IN CHENNAI BUT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. 19. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY DECISION AVAILABLE ON THIS ISSUE OF ANY HIGH COURT WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN RENDERED AFTER THE INCORPORATION OF THE PROVISION O F SECTION 12AA ON THE STATUTE BOOK. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS Y ES. THERE IS ONE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) VS MEENAKSHI AMM A ENDOWMENT I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 13 TRUST (2011) 50 DTR (KAR) 243 WHICH IS DIRECTLY O N THIS ISSUE. WE MAY MENTION THAT A DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IS ALSO AVAILABLE WHICH APPLIES MUTATIS MUTANDIS EVEN AFTER INCORPORATION OF PROCEDURAL PROVISION OF SECTION 12 AA AND THE CO- ORDINATE BENCHES HAVE FOLLOWED THE SAME AS DISCUSSE D ABOVE. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE AB OVE CASE HAS VERY SUCCINCTLY EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING WOR DS: THE TRUST WAS FORMED ON 23RD JAN. 2008 AND WITHIN A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS THEY HAD FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER S. 12A FOR ISSUANCE OF THE REGISTRATION CLAIMING EXEMPTION. THE FACT THAT THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST IS NOTHING BUT THE CONTRIBUTION OF ` 1 000 BY EACH OF THE TRUSTEES AS CORPUS FUND GOES TO SHOW THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE CONTRIBUTING THE FUNDS BY THEMSELVES IN A HUMBLE WAY AND WERE INTENDING TO COMMENCE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. IT IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT BY THE TIME THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO BE CONSIDERED BY THEM THE ASSESSEE HAD COLLECTED LOTS OF DONATIONS FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF T HE TRUST. ON THE OTHER HAND THE GRIEVANCE OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES SEEMS TO BE THAT THERE WAS NO ACTIVITY WHICH COULD BE TERMED AS CHARITABLE AS PER THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUCH REGISTRATION COULD NOT BE GRANTED. WHEN THE TRUST ITSELF WAS FORMED IN JANUARY 2008 WITH THE MONEY AVAILABLE WITH THE TRUST ONE CANNOT EXPECT THEM TO DO ACTIVITY OF CHARITY IMMEDIATELY AND BECAUSE OF THAT SITUATION THE AUTHORITY CANNOT COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT TRUST WAS NOT INTENDING TO DO ANY ACTIVITY OF CHARITY. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITY AND THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST COULD BE READ FROM THE TRUST DEED ITSELF. IN THE SUBSEQUENT RETURNS FILED BY THE TRUST IF THE REVENUE COMES ACROSS THAT FACTUALLY TRUST HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED TO WITHDRAW THE REGISTRATION ALREADY I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 14 GRANTED OR CANCEL THE SAID REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12AA(3). A TRUST COULD BE FORMED TODAY AND WITHIN A WEEK REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A COULD BE SOUGHT AS THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UNDER THE ACT SEEKING SUCH REGISTRATION. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IF SUCH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT MUCH LATER THAN THE FORMATION OF THE TRUST OR AFTER EXPIRY OF THE EARLIER REGISTRATION GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE TRUST. THEREFORE IN A CASE OF THIS N ATURE WHE R E THE TRUST HAS APPROACHED T HE AUTHO RI T Y FOR R EGISTRA T I O N UNDER S. 12 A WI T HIN A S P AN OF E I GHT MONTHS OF I TS F ORMATION THE ABOVE - ME NTI ONED CRITERIA N AMELY THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST FOR WHICH IT W A S F ORMED WILL HAVE T O BE EXAMINE D TO BE SATISFIED ABOU T I TS G E NUIN E N E SS AND ACT IVI T IES OF THE TR US T CANN OT BE T H E CRITER I O N SIN C E IT IS YET TO COMMENCE I T S ACTIVITI E S . T H E C O N C LUSI O N A RRIV E D A T BY T HE TRI BU N A L IS JUST A N D THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL Q UESTI O N TH A T C OULD B E GONE I N T O IN TH E PR E S EN T APPE AL . 20. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE READING OF THE ABO VE FINDING THAT IN THE CASE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT T HE TRUST WAS FORMED ON 23.1.2008 AND IT SOUGHT REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT ON 31.10.2008 I.E AFTER 8 MONTHS APPROXIMATELY BUT TH E DIT(E) REFUSED TO GRANT REGISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT YET COMMENCED ANY ACTIVITIES. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AFTER DISCUSSING VARIOUS ANGLES OF THE ISSUE HAS FINALLY DECIDED TH AT IN SUCH A SITUATION THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION BY THE AUTHORITY AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAVE TO BE CO NSIDERED IF SUCH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT LONG AFTER FORMATION OF THE TRUST OR AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE EARLIER REGISTRATION. 21. THE ABOVE DECISION SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE F ACTS OF THE GIVEN CASE. IN THIS CASE THE TRUST WAS CONSTITUTED BY A TRUST-DEED ON 27.11.2009 AND IT FILED APPLICATION IN FORM 10A ON 8.2.2010 FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTR ATION IN THE GIVEN CASE WAS FILED ONLY AFTER AROUND TWO MONTHS WHEREAS IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT APPLI CATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS FILED AFTER EIGHT MONTHS OF FORMAT ION OF THE TRUST. I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 15 IN THAT CASE ALSO THE REGISTRATION WAS REFUSED BECA USE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT STARTED ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES ALTHOUGH OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WERE FOUND TO BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. IN THE GIVEN CASE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE FOUND TO BE VERILY CHA RITABLE IN NATURE BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT STARTED/COMMENCED ITS A CTIVITIES THE REGISTRATION WAS REFUSED. 22. IN SUCH A CASE THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER A DECISION OF ANOTHER HIGH COURT NOT BEING DIRECTLY OF THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT ALBEIT IN THIS CASE THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS AVAILABLE BY IMPLICATION WHICH HAS BEEN F OLLOWED BY US IN THE CASE OF JITO CHENNAI CHAPTER AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IS A BINDING PRECEDENT OR NOT. IT HAS BEEN WELL ACCEPTED THAT T HOUGH LEGALLY JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER HIGH COURT IS NOT A BINDING PRE CEDENT YET A DECISION OF ANOTHER HIGH COURT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. IT IS ALSO A WELL SETTLED DICTUM OF LAW NOW. WHEN THERE IS NO CONTRA RY DECISION A DECISION OF ANOTHER HIGH COURT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED B Y THE TRIBUNAL. THE INCOME-TAX IS A CENTRAL ACT AND THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD FOLLOW THE DECISION OF ANOTHER HIGH COURT. IT WAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CO. P. LTD 237 ITR 234 (GAUHATI) WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS A DECISION OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURT AND THERE IS NO CONTRARY DECIS ION IT WILL BE JUST AND PROPER FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO FOLLOW THE SAID DECI SION. IN THIS CASE ALSO A DIRECT DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS A VAILABLE. IN FACT THERE IS A DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BUT IF IT IS NOT TREATED BEING DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE [BEING RENDERED U/S 12A ONLY] THE ONLY DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT OF HON'BLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) WHICH IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE ON THIS ISSUE. LIKEWISE A DECISION OF A CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS A BINDING EFFECT AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY T HE ANOTHER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UNLESS THE EARLIER VIEW WAS RENDERE D PER INCURIAM. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS REITERATED THIS L EGAL POSITION WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF CIT VS L.G.RAMAMURTHI & OTHERS 110 ITR 453 INTER ALIA. ACCORDINGLY THE LEGAL POSITION O N THE ISSUE BECOMES CRYSTALLIZED THAT AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERATION OF R EGISTRATION IT IS NOT A SINE QUA NON THAT THE TRUST MUST HAVE STARTED ITS ACTIVITIES. IN CASE THE TRUST HAS STARTED ITS ACTIVITIES THE LD. CIT C AN EXAMINE THEM AS HAS BEEN ENVISAGED IN THE ACT. THIS ABOVE CONCLUSI ON IS SAFEGUARDED BY SUB-CLAUSE(3) INCORPORATED IN SECTION 12AA VIDE WHICH IF AFTER GRANTING REGISTRATION IT IS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT TH AT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT CARRIED OUT IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS CHARITABLE OBJECTS I.T.A. NO. 495/MDS/2011 16 HE CAN CANCEL THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE TRUST . SO WHEN THESE PROVISIONS ARE READ IN CONJUNCTION AND A HAR MONIOUS INTERPRETATION IS GIVEN TO THEM WE FIND THAT THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCHES IN NUMEROUS SUCCESSIVE CASES SOME OF WHICH WE HAVE MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE IS VERY LOGICAL AND THE SA ME WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW. 23. ACCORDINGLY WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF LD. DIT(E) IN REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION AND CONSEQUENT REFUS AL TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S 80G OF THE ACT. NO FRUITFUL PURPOSE W ILL BE SERVED BY RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. DIT(E). CON SEQUENTLY WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE DIT(E) AND DIRECT HIM TO G RANT REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AND ALSO TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S 80G TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. 8. WE THEREFORE HAVE NO HESITATION TO QUASH THE O RDER OF LD. DIT(E) AND DIRECT HIM TO GRANT THE REGISTRATION AND APPROVAL SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAN DS ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH FEBRUARY 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 9 TH FEBRUARY 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) DIT(E) CHENNAI (4) D.R. (5) GUARD FILE