Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Vidya Vikas Education Trust, Mumbai vs Assessee on 8 January, 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH "F",
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 327/Mum/2012
Assessment Year : Not applicable
Vidya Vikas Education Trust Director of Income tax (Exemption)
Filka Building Daftary Road Room No.615, 6th Floor Piramal
Opp. Malad Raolway Station Chambers, Parel
Vs.
Malad (East) Mumbai-400 012.
Mumbai-400 097.
PAN No. AAATV 5023 E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri M. Subramanian
Respondent by : Shri Om Prakash M/s. Meena
Real Estate Consultant (HUF)
Date of hearing : 08.01.2013
Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2013
ORDER
PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 8.11.2011 of DIT(E) refusing to grant renewal of exemption under section 80-G of the Income tax Act. The only dispute is regarding grant of approval of exemption under section 80-G of the Act.
2. Facts in brief are that the assessee who had been earlier granted registration under section 12A of the Income tax Act dated 5.3.2004 had applied for renewal 2 ITA No.327/M/12 A.Y. NA of certificate under section 80-G of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 20.1.2011. CIT(A) on examination of records noted that applicant trust had altered the objects of the trust after grant of registration and no intimation regarding the same had been given to DIT(E). Therefore, the registration granted under section 12A earlier stood withdrawn from the date on which objects were amended by the trust. The DIT(E) also noted that the assessee had filed similar application earlier on 4.5.2009 which had been rejected vide order of DIT(E)/Cert./80-G/Rejection/R- 329/2011-12 dated 25.7.2011. DIT(E) referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Sakthi Charities vs. CIT (149 ITR 624) as per which the trust was not permitted to add or delete the objects. He also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Allahabad Agricultural Institute And Another. Vs. Union Of India And Others (291 ITR 116) in which it was held that once objects are changed the registration under section 12A granted earlier based on old objects could not survive. DIT(E) therefore, concluded that on the date of application for certificate under section 80-G the applicant trust no longer remained registered under section 12A of the I.T. Act. Therefore, there was no question of renewal under section 80-G. DIT(E) accordingly rejected the application of the trust aggrieved by which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Before us, the ld. AR submitted that the trust which had been incorporated on 1.4. 2003 had been granted registration under section 12A vide order dated 3 ITA No.327/M/12 A.Y. NA 5.4.2004 of DIT(E). It was submitted that DIT(E) was not correct in stating that there were changes in the objects of the trust. It was further submitted that there was another trust namely Saint John Lady Jeejeebhoy Trust which had the same trustees as those of the applicant trust. Both the trust had given application to the Charity Commissioner for the amalgamation of the trusts who were operating in the same field and had identical objects, under section 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Dy. Charity Commissioner vide order dated 30.5.2009 had allowed amalgamation of two trusts and as per the order, Saint John Lady Jeejeebhoy Trust stood amalgamated with applicant trust and their registration was cancelled. Thus, there was no change in the objects of the trust and activities of the trust remained same. There was also no change in the name of the trust. Therefore, the registration granted under section 12A was still valid. The ld. AR further submitted that the applicant trust vide letter dated 14.9.2009 had informed DIT(E) regarding amalgamation of the two trusts. Therefore, it was not correct that DIT(E) had not been informed. The ld. AR referred to the decision of the Tribunal dated 11.3.2011 in case of Mehta Jivraj Makandas & Parekh Govindaji Kalyanji Modh Vanik Vidyarthi Public Trust in which the Tribunal in the order in ITA No.2212/M/10 under identical situation in which there was amalgamation of two trusts had allowed the renewal of exemption under section 80-G of the Act. It was accordingly urged that the claim of the assessee should be allowed. The ld. DR on the other hand pointed out that the various factual situations pointed out by the ld. AR were not before the DIT(E) and, therefore, the matter requires fresh 4 ITA No.327/M/12 A.Y. NA examination and he had no objection if the matter was restored to DIT(E) for fresh order.
4. We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute raised is regarding grant of renewal of certificate under section 80-G of the Act. The renewal has been denied on the ground that there were changes in the objects of the trust and therefore registration granted earlier stood withdrawn and there being no registration under section 12A, the 80-G exemption could not be granted. The ld. AR has however pointed out that there were no changes in the objects of the trust. There was only amalgamation of two trusts having identical objects and common trustees which was allowed under section 50A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, as per which the other trust got amalgamated with the applicant trust. It has also been submitted that the applicant trust vide letter dated 14.9.2009 had informed DIT(E) about these developments. He has also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mehta Jivraj Makandas & Parekh Govindaji Kalyanji Modh Vanik Vidyarthi Public Trust (supra), in which under identical situation the Tribunal, even after considering the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Allahabad Agricultural Institute And Another. Vs. Union Of India And Others (supra), had allowed renewal certificate under section 80-G of the Act. After careful consideration of all aspects of the matter we find that the claim of the assessee that there were no changes in the objects of the trust, claim of amalgamation and other factual aspects require fresh 5 ITA No.327/M/12 A.Y. NA consideration as the same had not been examined by DIT(E). It is also required to be examined whether case of the assessee is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mehta Jivraj Makandas & Parekh Govindaji Kalyanji Modh Vanik Vidyarthi Public Trust (supra). We are, therefore, of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration at the level of DIT(E) in view of the various factual circumstances brought on record by the ld. AR. We, therefore, set aside the order of the DIT(E) and restore the matter back to him for passing a fresh order after necessary examination in the light of observations made above and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2013
Sd/- Sd/-
( AMIT SHUKLA) (RAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated : 16.01.2013.
Jv.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
The DR " " Bench
True Copy
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.