Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Glorious Evangelical Ministries, ... vs Assessee on 1 February, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH 'A' : CHENNAI
[BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND
SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER]
I.T.A No. 616/Mds/2011
Assessment year : 2010-11
M/s Glorious Evangelical Ministries vs The CIT -I
No.63, Telegraph Office Road Madurai
Tuticorin 628 002
[PAN - AABTG2392L]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Devanathan, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri Shaji P. Jacob, Sr.DR
ORDER
PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee-trust is directed against the order of the ld. CIT-I, Madurai, dated 1.2.2011, by which he has rejected the application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
2. The grounds raised in this appeal are as under:
"1. Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned CIT erred in denying registration u/s 12AA/80G of the Income-tax Act.:- 2 -: ITA 616/11
3. The learned CIT fundamentally failed to appreciate that the philosophy behind the benevolent provisions like section 11 of the I.T.Act is to confer benefit since the trust/institution is taking care of welfare/charitable activities akin to Governmental activities, Hence the administrative authorities should not whittle down the plenitude of exemption/relief granted by the parliament and fair procedure should and must be followed.
4. The learned CIT fundamentally failed to appreciate that the trust in question satisfied the conditions, viz' trust is a genuine one and its activities are charitable and the contrary finding of the learned CIT is perverse.
5. The learned CIT grossly erred in holding that the appellant trust did not produce donation receipts which is not only incorrect but bordering on false hood since the appellant filed mass of details including the receipts.
6. The learned CIT grossly erred in holding that the trust has twin objects both charitable and hence the trust cannot be allowed the benefit of registration. The activities carried out by the trust are admixture of both religious and charitable
7. The learned CIT erred in rejecting the claim for exemption u/s 80G without passing a speaking order and hence the order is nullity in law.
As decided in the case of The Society of presentation sisters & another, 318 ITR (AT)287(Cochin) by the Cochin bench of the !TAT that overlapping of religious and charitable activity cannot render the object of the Trust as not charitable in nature and cannot be reason for denying exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act or deny registration to the assessee Trust u/s 12AA of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Fifth Generation Education Society vs CIT(1990)185 ITR 634 and of the Madras High court in New life in Christ Evangelist Association Vs CIT 2000 246 ITR 532.
Carrying out charitable activities is not a relevant factor at the time of grant of registration and the same will be relevant only at the time of :- 3 -: ITA 616/11 considering the eligibility of the Trust to enjoy the benefit of section 11 &12 The appellant begs leave to add or amend any ground of appeal. "
3. We have considered the rival submissions. It was noticed from the trust deed appended to the application in Form No.10A for registration u/s 12AA, that the assessee-trust was created on 28.9.2010 by Shri L.Navaratnam, who has declared as the Founder of the trust. From the trust-deed the ld. CIT found that the activities carried out by the trust were admixture of religious as well as charitable ones. The trust was also running a church at Tuticorin wherein around 50 persons were attending the services. Mainly on that basis, the ld. CIT has denied registration u/s 12AA of the Act to the assessee-trust. From the records and in the light of the oral submissions, it was clearly found that the trust was carrying on both religious as well as charitable activities. There is no dispute between the parties about this factual matrix. Now, the simple question before is that as to whether such admixture activities can be treated as eligible for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act or not. It was found that this issue stands covered by numerous decisions taken by the Chennai Benches. We may refer to one such decision taken by this Bench vide order dated 3.3.2011 in the case of Prayer for India in :- 4 -: ITA 616/11 I.T.A.No. 196/Mds/2011. Paragraph 2 of this order is relevant and is being extracted here in below:
"2. We have heard both parties. In so far as the requisite registration u/s 12AA of the Act by the ld. CIT is concerned, the ld.AR argued that despite the fact that the assessee-trust is created for dong charitable activities, on irrelevant reasons, the ld. CIT has refused to grant registration u/s 12AA of the Act. On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the ld. CIT. We have found that the trust was created on 12.7.2007. A copy of the trust deed was also filed. The objects of the trust are found to be charitable in nature. The ld. CIT has observed that the objects of the trust are mixture of both religious and charitable. The Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Society of Presentation Sisters & Another, 318 ITR (AT) 287(Cochin), while dealing with an identical issue, has held that overlapping of religious and charitable activity cannot be taken as a reason to deny exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, as it cannot render the objects of the trust as not charitable in nature. Consequently, we direct the ld. CIT to grant registration to the assessee-trust u/s 12AA of the Act.
4. Therefore, in view of the above consistent view of this Bench, we direct the ld. CIT to grant registration u/s 12AA to the assessee-
trust.
5. During hearing, it was brought to our notice and it was also found from the grounds raised before us that recognition u/s 80G was also denied to the assessee-trust consequent upon rejection of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. The assessee-trust has not filed any separate appeal in this regard. The ld.DR, Shri Shaji P. Jacob has objected to the grant of recognition u/s 80G because the assessee has :- 5 -: ITA 616/11 not file any separate appeal in this regard. We are also of the similar view that in relation to the denial of recognition u/s 80G, the assessee-
trust is required to file a separate appeal, more particularly, when the ld. CIT has passed a separate order in this regard. The assessee is at liberty to file a separate appeal in this regard, if so advised. Therefore, in view of our foregoing observation, this appeal in I.T.A.No. 616/Mds/2011 stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.7.2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (HARI OM MARATHA)
VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 11th July, 2011
RD
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR