M/s Animal Care Society, Meerut v. CIT, Meerut

I.T.A. NO. 5531/DEL/10 1/4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5531 /DEL/2010 ANIMAL CARE SOCIETY CIT 282-BOUNDARY ROAD MEERUT. CIVIL LINES MEERUT. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AABAA AABAA AABAA AABAA- -- -3160 3160 3160 3160- -- -H HH H APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA SR. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) MEERUT DATED 28.10.2010 PASSED BY HIM U/S 80G(5)(VI) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT LD CIT HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF IT ACT IN VIEW OF DEFINITION U/S 215 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND IGNORE THE DEFINITION OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY HE NCE CIT HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. . I.T.A. NO.5531/DEL/10 2/4 2. THAT LD CIT RELY UPON KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SELF EMPLOYERS SERVICE SOCIETY V. CIT 247 ITR 18 FA CTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH THE RE WAS A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT FROM ONE SHRI VINOD KUMAR GO EL ADVOCATE BUT NONE WAS PRESENT TO PURSUE THIS ADJOURNMENT APPLI CATION. THE SAME WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EX PARTE QU A THE ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPLICATION O F THE ASSESSEE U/S 80G(5)(VI) HAD BEEN REJECTED BY LD CIT MEERUT MAIN LY ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT FALL UNDER THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AS LAID DOWN U/S 2(15) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961. ONE MORE OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MADE BY LD CIT MEERUT THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT ENCLOSED WITH THE APPLICATION IT IS REVEALED THAT VERY FEW EXPENSES WER E INCURRED ON THE ANIMAL MEDICINE & FOOD ETC. AND HAS NOT DONE MUCH WO RK TOWARDS IT. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CI T MEERUT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD DR OF THE RE VENUE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD CIT MEE RUT. WE ALSO FIND THAT A PAPER BOOK HAS BEEN FILED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING 29 PAGES. ON PAGE NO.6 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY THE SAME CIT MEERUT TO THE A SSESSEE U/.S 12A ON 29.1.10. SINCE THE SAME CIT HAS GRANTED REGISTRATI ON TO THE ASSESSEE U/.S 12A ON 19.1.2010 WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THIS OBSERVATION BY THE LD CIT MEERUT IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER DATED 28.10.2010 THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSE SSEE DO NOT FALL . I.T.A. NO.5531/DEL/10 3/4 UNDER THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AS LAID DOWN U/S 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IT IS BY NOW A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHEN REGISTRATION IS GRANTED U/S 12A AND THE SAME IS NOT DISTURBED THEN RE GISTRATION U/S 80G CANNOT BE REJECTED. MOREOVER WE FIND THAT AS P ER THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.3.2009 AND 31.3.2010 AS APPEARING ON PAGES 26 & 28 OF THE PA PER BOOK EXPENSES OF `.27 120/- WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 ON ACCOUNT OF ANIMAL MEDICINE EXPENSES A ND THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 IS `. 9 109/-. SIMILARLY ON ACCOUNT OF ANIMAL FOOD EXPENSES AN AMOUNT OF `.11 48 0/- WAS INCURRED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AND `.4500/- IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10. IN BOTH THE YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED `.12 000/- AS SAL ARY TO ANIMAL CARE TAKER AND ALSO `.12 000/- FOR ANIMAL SHE LTER RENT. IT MAY BE THAT THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE I S SMALL BUT THEN FOR THIS REASON ALONE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE NOT CHARITABLE PARTICULARLY WHEN FOR THE SAME ACTIVITIES REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED BY THE SAME CIT M EERUT U/S 12A OF THE ACT IN THE SAME CALENDAR YEAR. CONSIDERING ALL TH ESE FACTS THIS ORDER OF LD CIT MEERUT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO GET REGISTRATION U/S 8 0G(5)(VI) BECAUSE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LD CIT MEERUT AR E NOT VALID. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE LD CIT MEERUT TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAY 18 TH FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (A.K. GAROD IA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 18.2.2011. HMS . I.T.A. NO.5531/DEL/10 4/4 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI).