|CORAM:||Kuldip Singh (JM), R. K. Panda (AM)|
|CATCH WORDS:||Charitable purpose, charity, registration|
|DATE:||December 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||January 13, 2018 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 12A: CIT is not justified in rejecting registration on the ground that the non-production of books and vouchers means that the genuineness of the charitable activities cannot be verified. The CIT is entitled only to examine the objects of the trust at the stage of registration and not the books of account|
(i) Since the assessee trust did not produce the books and vouchers in respect of expenses claimed by the society for verification of the activities of the trust, the ld. CIT held that the assessee trust is not carrying out any charitable activities and, therefore, the genuineness of the activities could not be verified. Relying on various decisions, the ld. CIT rejected the claim of registration sought by the society u/s 12A(1) of the I.T. Act. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that at the time of granting of registration the ld. CIT is required only to examine the objects of the trust and is not required to examine the books of account of the trust and it is only during the claim of exemption u/s 11 the Assessing Officer will examine the same and allow or disallow the same as the case may be. It is also his submission that since the assessee trust is imparting education by running various schools and colleges, therefore, it is doing charitable activities as according to him “education” per se is charitable activity.
(ii) We find merit in the above submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee. So far as whether education per se is charitable or not, we find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shavak Shiksha Samiti (supra) at para 3 has observed as under :-
“3. We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. Section 2(15) defines the term ‘charitable purpose’ in an inclusive manner and includes within its ambit relief of poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility. While, there could be some dispute in interpretation of the words “any other object of general public utility”, there is no dispute that education per se is a charitable purpose just like relief of poor or medical relief. The society also does not exist for profit as there is no clause for distribution of profits or net assets in case of dissolution to members. The precondition for grant of registration under Section 12AA is that objects are charitable in nature and activities are genuine. We have seen that objects are charitable. The society is trying to set up a school in pursuance of its main object, which is a genuine activity. The learned CIT has also not referred to any material to show that the activities are not genuine. It is no doubt true that income of the society can also be exempted under Section 10(23C), but when two recourses are available to a person under the law, it is for him to choose one, the other or both the recourses. The assessee applied for its registration, to which it was entitled. We are of the view that under the circumstances, it has to be registered. The learned CIT is directed to grant registration to the society.”
(iii) The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shanti Education and Welfare Society vs. CIT in ITA No.5970/Del/2017 order dated 16.01.2015 has also held similar view by observing as under :-
“8. Applying the foregoing ratio, it is evident that the relevant determinative factor for conferring registration is the object of the society and the quantum of profits/ surplus is an irrelevant factor. In the present case, admittedly and undisputedly appellant society is imparting education. And education per-se is a charitable object u/s 2(15) of the Act. The basis of impugned action to regard the society as commercial at the stage of registration on the basis of expenditure incurred on advertisement and publicity is unwarranted and against the settled interpretation of the statute. Before concluding we also take notice that the ld CIT has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of CIT Vs. Queen Educational Society, which is not applicable to the facts of the present case, for the reason that the examination at the stage of registration is to be confined to the objects and moreover as held by the Apex Court in American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute (supra) the character of the recipient of the income must have the character of educational institution is to be determined irrespective of the profits. In view of the above we reverse the order of the CIT and direct it to grant registration u/s 12A of the Act.”
(iv) The various other decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Paper Book also supports the view that education per se is a charitable activity.
(v) Now, coming to the powers of the Commissioner as to whether while granting registration u/s 12A he is required to examine the books of account etc. or he is only to satisfy himself regarding the objects of the trust and genuineness of the activities of the trust, we find various courts have held that while granting registration u/s 12A the ld. CIT is required to see only the objects of the assessee trust/society and not to examine the application of income. He is not required to examine whether the income derived by the trust is being spent for charitable purposes or the trust is earning profit while granting registration. He is only required to examine the objects of the trust. We find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Bhartiya Kisan Sangh Sewa Niketan (supra). In the said case also the assessee trust did not produce the books of account, bills and vouchers etc. for verification of the ld. CIT for which the ld. CIT held that the assessee society is not carrying out any charitable activities. Due to non-compliance of assessee society, the genuineness of the activities could not be verified. The ld. CIT, therefore, relying on various decisions including the decisions which have been relied on by the ld. CIT in the present case, rejected the claim of registration u/s 12A(1) of the I.T. Act. When the matter travelled to the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the claim of registration by holding that at this stage on granting registration u/s 12A the ld. CIT is required to see the objects of the society and not required to examine the application of income which will have to be undertaken by the Assessing Officer on a year to year basis after the assessee files the return of income claiming exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act.
(vi) We find the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Fifth Generation Education Society (supra) has observed as under:-
“2. A reading of the section shows that the registration under Section 12A is a pre-condition for availing of the benefit under Sections 11 and 12. Section 11 provides for exemption of income which is applied for charitable purposes. Section 12 is in the nature of an explanation to Section 11. Before a person can claim the benefit of Section 11, or Section 12, as the case may be, he must obtain registration under Section 12A. The application for registration under Section 12A has to be made in Form No. 10A prescribed by Rule 17A before the expiry of one year from the date of creation of the trust or the establishment of the institution, whichever is later. It has to be made by the person in receipt of the income of the trust.
3. It is evident that, at this stage, the Commissioner is not to examine the application of income. All that he may examine is whether the application is made in accordance with the requirements of Section 12A read with Rule 17A and whether Form No. 10A has been properly filled up. He may also see whether the objects of the trust are charitable or not. At this stage, it is not proper to examine the application of income.
4. The order impugned does not say that the objects of the society are not charitable in nature; it merely says that they are general in nature. Just because they are general, they do not cease to be charitable. The Commissioner has also observed that no activity has been carried on by the society. It is also not the requirement of Section 12A of the Act. Nor has Section 80Gany relevance at this stage. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained and it is quashed.”
(vii) We find the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of A.S. Kupparaji Brothers Charitable Foundation Trust (supra) has observed as under :-
“The certificate of registration is only an enabling provision to claim exemption. By merely granting a certificate income is not exempted. That is only a first stage to claim exemption. The Commissioner of Appeals should not have confused these two aspects and seems to think as the trustees and his family members are treating the property as their own and misutilising the property it is not a genuine trust. When once it is admitted that in pursuance of the trust deed and in terms of the objects set out therein, schools and colleges are being run and educational institutions are being run as rightly held by the Tribunal, nothing more requires to be established to show that the trust in question is a genuine trust and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the registration under section 12AA of the Act. As set out above, even if the registration is granted, the exemption from the provisions of the Income Tax Act in particular sections 11 and 12 is not automatic. It is only when the assessee satisfies the requirement of section 13, he would be eligible for exemption. That is a matter to be gone into by the Assessing Authority in respect of the returns filed every year and if according to them there is misappropriation of funds and it is hit by section 13 of the Act, certainly, they can deny the benefit of exemption. But that is not a ground to deny the registration in the instant case under Section 12AA, when admittedly the trust has been established to run schools and colleges for imparting education, which is a charitable purpose. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
(viii) We find the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of D.P.R. Charitable Trust (supra) has observed as under:-
“8. Sec. 12A of the Act prescribes conditions for registration of the trust whereas s. 12AA of the Act prescribes the procedure for registration. A careful reading of the relevant provisions would reveal that application for registration under s. 12A has to be made in Form No.10A prescribed by r. 17A before the expiry of one year from the date of creation of the trust or establishment of the institution whichever is later. The application has to be made by a person in receipt of income of the trust. Thus while dealing with the application for registration the CIT has to examine whether the application is made in accordance with s. 12A r/w r. 17A and whether Form No.10A has been properly filled up. He may also examine whether objects of the trust are charitable or not. Sec. 12AA nowhere provides that CIT while considering the application for registration is also required to examine whether the income derived by the trust is being spent for charitable purposes or the trust is earning profit. The language employed by the legislature in s. 12AA only requires that activities of the trust or institution must be genuine which should be in consonance with the object of the trust. At this stage, the CIT is not required to examine the application of income. All that he may examine is whether the application is made in accordance with the requirements of s. 12A r/w r. 17A and whether Form No.10A has been properly filled up. He has also to see whether the objects of the trust are charitable or not. Our view funds support from the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Red Rose School (supra) and the decisions in the case of New Life in Christ Evangelistic Association (supra), Fifth Generation Education Society (supra) and Shantagauri Ramniklal Trust (supra).
9. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal position facts of the case may be seen. Admittedly the application submitted by the respondent was in consonance with the procedural requirement prescribed in this regard. From the trust deed which was filed before the CIT the objects of the trust could be ascertained. From perusal of cl. (3) of the trust deed we find that the objects of the trust are charitable in nature and are in tune with s. 2(15) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly opined that the order of the CIT rejecting the application under s. 12A was unjustified.”
(ix) The various other decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Paper Book also support his case. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the ld. CIT was not justified in rejecting the claim of registration u/s 12A. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the ld. CIT and direct him to allow registration u/s 12A of the I.T. Act.
(a) Shavak Shiksha Samiti vs. CIT, 104 TTJ 127 (Del.).
(b) Aryan Educational Society vs. CIT, 93 ITD 546.
(c) Shanti Education and Welfare Society vs. CIT, ITA No.5970/Del/2012.
(d) Amby International School Academy vs. DIT, ITA No.6214/Mum/2009 dated 25.01.2012.
(d) Indo-American Society vs. ACIT, 278 ITR (AT) 49.
CIT IS REALLY FOOL HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND EVEN COMMON BASIC LAW THIRD CLASS CIT MUST BE SENT TO TRAINING CENTER TO UNDERSTAND BASIC LAW REALLY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS FULL OF FOOLS
Sirji, This reminds me of one of my Relative ( who also CA) NRI. case. It was filed by some other CA. There was a refund of Rs 50000 even U/s 140A was paid by Rs 15000. Total Refund came to Rs75000. CA also took Fees Rs 750 For filing Return of Income . Also took Rs 15000 for Refund Processing. But no refund came up for 2 years. Then he approached to CA who filed Return of Income. He bluntly refuted that he did all and every thing for Refund . It is not his responsible for refund? Not only this at the department side , In Income Tax Act written that A O has reason to reduce Re 1/ from refund claim he has to serve a notice to Asses see. But surprisingly to note AO , Designation of A C I T level not ordinary A O , converted Refund in to demand of Rs75000 ? , No demand notice was served , copy of the order was served to client, Form 7 was not served , following which the other processes for filing an applea, Revision to Hon. C I T , Appeals can be filed. All doors were closed by A C I T > Not only this the file was not traceable in the Office when I inquired. This is how Process followed. After filing a special civil application Got the refund. Under the circumstances , where there is a case for all the doors are closed this process can be availed,
Atn: Mr BMC.,
pls do not get upset and annoyed we are all live in a systematically messed up society from the base education level we know how Govt.,Job filling up process and promotion., placement etc.,many officers are under severe stress of DO or Leave( reaching target is the only goal)
there are cases of demand made for CG when JD agreements are questioned at the court of Law(Demand AO is made When JDagt.Property is in Litigation) Professionals never be have hardfeeling !!