Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the AO and submitted that the Trust was formed in the year 1972 and registered u/s.12AA of the Act, as a charitable institution. The main object of the Trust is relief to the poor, ITA Nos.53 to 61/Chny/2023 Ramshaimal Sahuwala & Sons Charitable Trust :: 6 ::

10. The Ld. Sr.AR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that in order to consider any Trust or institution for the benefit of exemption u/s.11 of the Act, irrespective of what is written in the objects of the Trust, the activity carried out by the Trust or Institution during relevant period has to be seen. In the present case, although the assessee has composite objects, but if you go by the activities carried out by the Trust for these assessment years, it is predominantly engaged in the activity of a running of Kalyan Mandapam at Chennai & Coimbatore, in commercial lines for fees or cess like any other private service provider and thus, the activity of the Trust comes under the last limb of definition of charitable purpose, the advancement of any other object of GPU. Since, the assessee is a GPU Trust, the proviso to sec.2(15) of the Act, comes into operation and as per said proviso, gross receipts from the activity is exceeds the specified sum, the Trust or Institution cannot claim the benefit of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. Since, the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) brought out clear facts to the effect that gross receipts from the activity of the assessee's Trust exceeds the specified limits for all these assessment years, the AO has rightly denied exemption u/s.11 of the Act, and their orders should be upheld.

gross-receipts from the activity is exceeded the prescribed limit, the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The AO has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of objects of the Trust as per their deed of Trust dated 22.06.1972 and the activities carried out during these assessment years. According to the AO, although the assessee' Trust is having composite object which may be falls under other limbs of the definition of the charitable purpose, but the Trust has carried out only the object of advancement of any other object of GPU which is evident from the activities of the Trust for these assessment years. The Trust is only running Kalyan Mandapam at Chennai & Coimbatore on commercial lines by charging fees and cess. The AO took support from materials gathered during the course of survey conducted u/s.133A of the Act, coupled with statement recorded from trustees to arrive at a conclusion that except carrying out the object of GPU, the assessee is not carrying out any charitable objects as defined u/s.2(15) of the Act. The AO had also discussed certain violations referred to u/s.13(1)(c) of the Act with regard to payment made for certain expenses and opined that the income of the Trust has been diverted for the benefit of trustees and their family members in contravention of s.13(1)(c) of the Act.

13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the AO to reject exemption u/s.11 of the Act, in light of various averments made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and we ourselves ITA Nos.53 to 61/Chny/2023 Ramshaimal Sahuwala & Sons Charitable Trust :: 14 ::

subscribe to the reasons given by the AO to deny the benefit of exemption u/s.11 of the Act, for the simple reason that although, the assessee is having composite objects which can be considered under other limb of the definition of charitable purpose u/s.2(15) of the Act, but the assessee has only carried out advancement of any other object of GPU which is clearly evident from the activities carried out by the assessee's Trust for these assessment years. The facts brought on record by the AO in light of survey conducted u/s.133A of the Act, clearly shows that the assessee is running Kalyan Mandapam at Chennai & Coimbatore in commercial lines for fees and cess like any other persons carrying out business operations. Further, although the assessee claims to have spent the income generated from GPU activity for education and relief of the poor, but on perusal of financial statement filed by the assessee for these assessment years, it is abundantly clear that except a minimum amount of donations, the assessee has not spent any amount for charitable purpose as per their objects specified in the deed of Trust. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee that the assessee's Trust is a charitable Trust and carrying out charitable activities as defined u/s.2(15) of the Act, and further, the activities of the assessee's Trust comes under the definition of 'education'. Further, the definition of "education" has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lok Shikshana Trust reported in [1970] 77 ITR 61 (Mys.) and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme ITA Nos.53 to 61/Chny/2023 Ramshaimal Sahuwala & Sons Charitable Trust :: 15 ::