Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"(III).......................................................................................

..............(i) At the outset, it is seen that the ld. Counsel has been reiterating time and again in his submissions that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2008-09 on 27.12.10 has not disputed this fact i.e., the activities carried on by the assessee trust are not genuine furthermore, there is no indication in the show-cause notice dated 10.2.11 (supra) that the activities carried on by the assessee trust are not genuine on the contrary, it is seen that the affairs of the assessee trust would clearly indicate that the undersigned has taken judicial notice of a notorious fact which has been given judicial benediction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mehmudabad Properties Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (1972) 85 ITR 500 (Cal). In this case, the main notorious facts are that the trust has been indulging in taking donations from the students, indulging in transactions of commercial nature within the family group itself, clearly violating the provisions of section 11(1)(d) and 13(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961. These notorious facts would further stare in the face of the so- called genuineness of this trust. The foregoing paras would amply demonstrate that the activities of this trust are not only non-genuine in nature but also some of its activities would fall outside the objects of the trust.

(iv) the board of trustees had passed resolutions in this regard;

(v) the funds were routed through the trustees account in view of the land being agricultural and one of the trustees was an agriculturist. The trustees had not retained any part of the said fund. In view of the above facts, it cannot be said that the afore said activity was non-genuine or outside the objects of the trust.

In view of the above, the DIT (E) having not doubted the genuineness of the activities of the appellant trust and the activities not found beyond its objects, the cancellation of registration is unwarranted. 3.4.1. It is contended by DIT (E) in para (ii) of the impugned order that the transaction of commercial nature by transferring the amount of Rs.4.50 crores to the account of trustees etc., was outside the objects of the trust and it had failed to intimate change/alteration of its objectsl 3.4.2. The appellant begs to submit that the transaction of transferring such amount was not commercial in nature because:

3.6.1. Lastly, the DIT (E) has cancelled registration w.e.f. 21.3.1990 which is wholly illegal, unlawful and unjust. It is surprising that DIT (E) by relying upon the assessment for AY 2008-09 made by AO, cancelled the registration from the date of grant, though there was no evidence on record to show that the activities carried out in the past were non-genuine or in accordance with the objects of the trust. The DIT (E) has not brought on record even a single instance relating to the past years so as to cancel registration from that date. It is surprising that the appellant trust carrying on education activities for past many years and for three generations has been treated as non- genuine by DIT (E) from its inception. This action on part of DIT (E) clearly demonstrates non-application of mind and bias. 6.2. On the other hand, the Ld. D R had vehemently argued that as the activities of the assessee were not only non-genuine in nature but also outside the objects of the trust and for the detailed reasons recorded in his findings, the DIT (E) cancelled the registration earlier granted to the assessee trust. It was, therefore, pleaded that the stand of the DIT(E) requires to be sustained.

7.2. The cruxes of the issues which prompted the DIT (E) to resort to cancel the registration can, at best, be narrowed down to the following reasons:

40

(1) the activities of the trust were not only non-genuine in nature, but also some of the activities were outside the objects of the trust;
(2) the transaction of commercial nature by way of transferring Rs.4.50 crores to Shri Muktak Kapadia and his sons who in turn paid to Smt. Sonalben Jakasania towards agreement to sell of the agricultural land;