Anwar Charitable Trust, Hyderabad v. DIT, Hyderabad

ITA 50/HYD/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5022514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAATA9708R
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 50/HYD/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Anwar Charitable Trust, Hyderabad
Respondent DIT, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 09-04-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 13-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.50/HYD/10 : ANWAR CHARITABLE TRUST HYDERABAD. (PAN - AAATA9708R) VS DIRECTGOR OF IT (EXEMPTIONS) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI SYED JAMEELUDDIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. K.V.N. CHARYA O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HYDERABAD DATE D 4-12-2009 REJECTING THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10G FOR GRANT O F APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UND ER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE DIT(E) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND IS AGAINST THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE TRUST ARE FREE DISTRIBUTION OF CLOTHES TO THE POOR AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRESS AND L ONG-NOTE BOOKS AND GRANT OF EDUCATIONAL AID TO POOR STUDENTS AWAR DING OF SCHOLARSHIPS AND ALSO RUNNING OF A SCHOOL FOR CLASS ES NURSERY TO SEVENTH STANDARD. 3. THE DIT(E) IN PARAGRAPH-2 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVE D THAT THE TRUST IS RUNNING CLASSES FOR LKG UKG AND PLAY SCHOOL TH OUGH THERE 2 WAS NO PERMISSION FROM THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFF ICER FOR RUNNING SUCH CLASSES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT TH E SAID CLASSES TO NOT COME UNDER THE TERM EDUCATION AND THEREFORE NO CURRICULUM OR SYLLABUS IS PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNM ENT FOR SUCH CLASSES. HENCE NO PERMISSION IS REQUIRED FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR RUNNING SUCH CLASSES AND THEREFORE NO SPECIFI C PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SUCH CLASSES. HENCE THE DIT(E) IS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUN NING THE CLASSES IN PRE-PRIMARY STAGE IN VIOLATION OF AP EDU CATIONAL ACT 1982 (CHAPTER VI R.W.S. 2(322A). 4. THE DIT(E) IS WRONG IN HOLDING IN PARAGRAPH-2 A T PAGE-2 OF THE ORDER THAT THE TRUST CARRIED OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVIT IES IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FRAMED B Y THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE DIT (E) IS WRONG IN HOLDING IN PARAGRAPH-2 3 AND 5 AT PAGE- 2 OF THE ORDER THAT THE TRUST HAS NOT COMPLIED WIT H THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IS SUED IN G O DATED 6-8-2009 SINCE THIS GO HAS NOT BEEN CIRCULAT ED TILL DATE TO THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THE TRUST HAS APPLIE D FOR RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION ON 15-6-2009 WHEREAS THE GO CITED B Y THE DIT (E) IS G.O DATED 6-8-2009. HENCE THE QUESTION OF NON COMPLIANCE DOES NOT ARISE. 6. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IF AT ALL THE G O DAT ED 6-8-2009 IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IT WOULD BE ONLY FROM THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009- 10 AND NOT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH ARE UNDER C ONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE G O DOES NOT ARISE. 7. ONE OF THE REASONS STATED BY THE DIT(E) IN PARA -4 AT PAGE-2 OF THE ORDER IS THAT THE DONATIONS TO CORPUS FUND COL LECTED BY THE TRUST WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE LETTERS FROM DONORS . THE OBSERVATION OF THE DIT(E) IS WRONG BECAUSE ALL THE DONATIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY RECEIPTS AND THE TRUST ALSO FURNISHED FULL AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS. THE DONATIONS TO THE TRUST WERE IN SMALL AMOUNTS AND THE DONORS WERE IN SEVERA L HUNDREDS. MOREOVER THE DIT (E) HAS NEVER CALLED FOR FOR SUC H LETTERS AND NO FORMS OR LETTERS ARE PRESCRIBED FOR THIS PURPOSE . HENCE THE DIT IS WRONG IN MAKING SUCH AN OBSERVATION. 3 8. THE DIT(E) IS WRONG IN REJECTING THE BENEFIT OF RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G BY STATING IN PARA-6 AT PAGE 2 OF THE ORDER THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE TRUST WERE N OT WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF LAW AND VIOLATED THE A.P EDUCATIONAL ACT 1982 AND ALSO THE G.O. DATED 6-8-2009.' 3. AT THE OUTSET WE FIND THAT THE DIT (E) REJECTED T HE BENEFIT OF RENEWAL U/S 80G OF THE ACT MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS I. E (I) THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION HAD NOT OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDER THE AP EDUCATIONAL ACT 1982 FOR CLASSES FROM LKG UKG AND PLAY-SCHOOL AND (II) ASSESSEE-SO CIETY COLLECTED CORPUS DONATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 17.80 LAKHS AND RS.14.9 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECT IVELY WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING LETTERS FROM THE DONORS. WE FI ND THAT BOTH THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF M/S. KAMALAKAR MEMORIAL CHA RITABLE TRUST VS. DIT (ITA NO. 1145/HYD/2009 DATED 5TH MARCH 2010 W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF NAGPUR BENCH IN T HE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND MARKET COMMITTEE VS. CIT 97 TTJ 165 THAT MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT SHALL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS A N ON CHARITABLE ONE. IN THE CASE OF KALYANAM KAROTI VS. CIT (123 ITD 317) THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHILE GRANTING RECOGN ITION UNDER SECTION 80G (5) OF THE ACT OR CONTINUATION THEREOF THE DEPAR TMENT HAS TO ONLY TO SEE WHETHER THE SOCIETY FULFILS THE CONDITIONS LAID DO WN IN CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SECTION 80G (5) OF THE ACT AND NOT WHETHER C ERTAIN RECEIPTS LIKE VOLUNTARY DONATIONS ARE PROPERLY EXPLAINED OR NOT. THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF NN DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CIT (246 ITR 452) THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO ONLY SEE WHILE GRANTING RECOGNITION U/S 80G(5) OR CONTINUATION THEREOF WHETHER THE SOCIETY FULFILS THE CO NDITIONS LAID DOWN 4 IN CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SECTION 80G (5) OF THE ACT AND NOT WHETHER CERTAIN RECEIPTS LIKE VOLUNTARY DONATIONS ARE PROPERLY EXPL AINED OR NOT. THIS IS A JOB OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT ACT AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE OTHER GROUNDS ON WHICH THE DIT ( E) NOT GRANTED THE CONTINUATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 80G IS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS COLLECTED A SUM OF RS.13 31 100 BY WAY OF RECREATION FEE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE G.O. ISSUED ON 6TH AUGUST 2009 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WE FIND THAT THE TRUST HAD APPLIED FOR RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION ON 15TH JUNE 2009 WHEREAS TH E G.O REFERRED BY THE LEARNED DIT(E) IS DATED 6TH AUGUST 2009. HENCE TH E QUESTION OF NON COMPLIANCE OF G.O DOES NOT ARISE. THIS ASPECT WHETHER THE GO WAS ISSUED EARLIER TO THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF REGIST RATION OR NOT NEEDS VERIFICATION BY THE LEARNED DIT (E). IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE I SSUE TO THE LEARNED DIT (E) FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEA RD. 4. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9-04-2010. SD/- G.C.GUPTA SD/- AKBER BASHA VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 9TH APRIL 2010 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. C/O SYED JAMEELUDDIN IT CONSULTANT 16-7-302 'ERRAM COTTAGE' AZAMPURA HYDERABAD. 3. DIT(E) HYDERABAD. 4. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. JMR