Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee was granted registration u/s 12A on 25.11.1988, which has been withdrawn twice by the Ld. CIT. The issue has been set aside by the Coordinate Bench to reconsider the withdrawn of registration, which was also challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, who has allowed the assessee's prayer and directed to consider the application afresh without influencing any of the observation made by the appellate authority. The assessee has been provided reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT. The assessee trust made it clear that this amendment in object of memorandum in 2005 was due to change made in the Rajasthan Sports (registration, Recognition and Regulation of Association) Act, 2005. The amended objects were not voluntary change. The assessee has to follow the said laws related to sports activities. The comparison given by the Ld. CIT in his order dated 28.03.2013 does not show any fundamental deviation from the original charitable activities to non-charitable activities. The assessee's object to promote the cricket in State by providing / involving various activities at the district level to state level through coaching provided by coaches, ground and facilities etc. Therefore, the assessee's activities are charitable. The other activities are incidental or conductive of the main activity. The case laws referred by the assessee particularly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Mool Chand Khairati Trust (supra) is squarely applicable as the assessee amended the provisions, does not change the character of the assessee from charitable to non-charitable or commercial. At the time of registration, the Ld. CIT has to consider Section 12AA(3) and he has to consider two conditions for rejection of registration granted (i) the activities of the trust are not genuine, (ii) are not being carried out in accordance with the object of the trust as the case may be. The Ld. CIT has not found any infirmity in the activities carried out by the RCA as non-genuine or not being carried out as per object of the trust. It is also a fact that the game of cricket become very potential with reference to revenue compared to other games, therefore, the revenue generated by the RCA are substantial but this ground cannot be used to cancel the registration granted by the Ld. CIT as predominant object of the trust is charitable and substantial revenue generated is incidental to the main object. If, the Ld. Assessing Officer found any violation in application of fund, he can make disallowance u/s 11 of the Act. Thus, we M/s Rajasthan cricket Association.

by the RCA are substantial but this ground cannot be used to cancel the registration granted by the ld. CIT as predominant object o the trust is charitable and substantial review generated is incidental to the main object. If, the Id Assessing Officer found any violation in application o fund, he can make disallowance U/s 11 o the Act. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Id CIT was not right in withdrawing the registration granted u/s 12A of the Act."

4. Thus AO needs to examine in assessment whether proviso to 2(15) is attracted.

21. In the matter of "Additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures Association", (1980) 121 ITR, 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in section 2(15) viz. 'not involving carrying on any activity of profit' is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of genral public utility which must not involve carrying on of any activity for profit and not its advancement or attainment. The court observed that what is inhibited by these last ten words is the linking of activity or profit with the object of general public utility and not its linking with the accomplishment or carrying out other object. Thus, so long as purpose does not involve carrying on or any activity for profit, the requirement of definition would be met and it is immaterial how the money's for achieving or implementing such purpose are found whether by carrying on an activity for profit or not.

21. In the matter of "Additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures Association", (1980) 121 ITR, 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity. The court further observed that true meaning of the words in section 2(15) viz. 'not involving carrying on any activity of profit' is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of genral public utility which must not involve carrying on of any activity for profit and not its advancement or attainment. The court observed that what is inhibited by these last ten words is the linking of activity or profit with the object of general public utility and not its linking with the accomplishment or carrying out other object. Thus, so long as purpose does not involve carrying on or any activity for profit, the requirement of definition would be met and it is immaterial how the money's for achieving or implementing such purpose are found whether by carrying on an activity for profit or not.