Mahamaya Educational Trust, Lucknow v. CIT, Lucknow

ITA 639/LKW/2010 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 63923714 RSA 2010
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 639/LKW/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Mahamaya Educational Trust, Lucknow
Respondent CIT, Lucknow
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 12-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 11-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 11-01-2011
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 19-10-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'B' LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI H. L. KARWA HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N. K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.639 & 640/LUC/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR: N.A. MAHAMAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. C.I.T.-I 6/237 E-PIPUL KHAND LUCKNOW. GOMTI NAGAR LUCKNOW. PAN:AACTM-2707L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. N. SRIVASTAVA A. R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P. K. BAJAJ D. R. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N. K. SAINI: PER N. K. SAINI: PER N. K. SAINI: PER N. K. SAINI: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS EACH DATED 30/08/2010 OF CIT-I LUCKNOW. SINCE THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DEC IDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH I.T.A. NO.639/LUC/10. IN THIS APPEAL THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE REJECTION OF THE 2 APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE MOVED IN RESPECT OF REGISTRA TION OF THE TRUST DEED U/S 12A OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 3. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS CREATED ON 21/04/2008 AND FILED THE APPLICA TION U/S 12A(1)(A) OF THE ACT ON 19/02/2010 SEEKING REGISTRATION UNDER THE SAID SECTION. THE LEARNED CIT ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CLEAR COPY OF THE TRUST DEED AS THE COPY OF THE SAID DEED WAS NOT LEGIBLE . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED ON 27/08/2010 AN D STATED THAT THE TRUST DEED HAD BEEN CORRECTED BY RESOLUTION DATED26/0 8/2010. THE LEARNED CIT DISCUSSED THE CONTENTS IN CLAUSE 9 11 AND 15 OF THE TRUST DEED AND OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST WAS N OT CONFINED TO INDIA BUT WHOLE WORLD BUT THERE IS NO CLAUSE REGARDIN G DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS AND THE LIABILITY IN CASE OF THE DISSOLUTION O F THE TRUST DEED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST DEED HAD BEEN RECTI FIED BY REMOVING THE DEFECT IN THE AFORESAID CLAUSES AND A CLA USE HAD BEEN ADDED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS IN CASE OF DISSOLUTION O F THE TRUST. THE LEARNED CIT REJECTED THE APPLICATION BY STATING THAT THE TRUST DEED COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED OR MODIFIED WITH RETROSPECT IVE EFFECT AND THAT THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST WAS ALSO NOT CHARITABLE IN NAT URE. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT A TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PART ICULAR RELIGIOUS 3 COMMUNITY OR CASTE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION. NO W THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LEARNED CIT HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER AND EVEN DID NOT CO NSIDER THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE T RUST WAS NOT CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNIT Y RATHER IT WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF GENERAL PUBLIC AT LARGE AND NOT A PA RTICULAR COMMUNITY. 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED D. R. REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT AND STRONGLY SUPP ORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE OBJECTS AND ACT IVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WERE ALSO NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT IS A NON SPEAKING ORDER IN THE EYES OF LAW . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET ASIDE THIS ORDER BACK TO THE FILE O F LEARNED CIT TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PRO VIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 7. NOW WE WILL DEAL WITH I.T.A. NO.640/LUC/10. IN THIS APPEAL THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL SOUGHT U/S 80G OF THE ACT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT REJECTED THIS APPLICATION FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT HAD BEEN REJECTED. N O OTHER REASON HAS BEEN ASSIGNED. SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THE ISSUE RELATIN G TO THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. (THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/0 1/2011) SD/. ( H. L. KARWA ) VICE PRESIDENT SD/. (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12/01/2011 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR