Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"1. That the captioned appeal was partly heard on 02.05.2017 when learned CIT DR concluded his arguments and also filed written submission supporting the order of the learned AO. In response to the aforesaid written submissions, the assessee had orally made part of the submissions and seeks to file its rejoinder written submissions which are as under. PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:
2. That Swami Omkarananda Saraswati Charitable Trust is a charitable trust, which came into existence on 31S| March, 1989 with the predominant object of establishing and developing institutions such as schools and colleges in India for imparting education founded on true spiritual and secular ideals as also for providing medical aid for the needy through well appointed hospitals as is evident from the Trust deed (see page 38 of the Paper Book). It would therefore be seen that predominant object of the assessee trust is education and medical relief which is charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. That since the objects of the assessee trust is charitable as such, assessee trust was granted registration under section 12A(a) of the Act vide registration no. C No.: 40(3)/Nibandhan/Rishikesh/89-9-/CIB/22448 on 31.01.1990 with effect from 01.04.1989 and aforesaid registration is still subsisting. 2.1 That since its inception i.e. AY 1990-91, assessee trust had been furnishing its return of income and till the AY 2009-10, exemption claimed by the assessee has been allowed except for the AY 2002-03 when exemption was denied by the AO, however same was allowed by the learned CIT(A) and upheld by the Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court (see page 465-489 of PB). That the nature of activities carried by the assessee continues to remain the same and there has been no change in facts and circumstances of the case (see page 504-506 of PB).
has not been discharged.  It would be seen that from the perusal of the aforesaid, it would be seen that all the aforesaid trusts are having charitable objects and are also duly registered u/s 12A of the Act.
 As such, the contention that assessee trust has granted donations to trusts having common trustees is wholly misconceived and ignoring that all the aforesaid trusts have charitable objects and also duly registered u/s 12AoftheAct.

DIT vs. L Charanjiv In the instant case, assessee has advanced the sum to a company Charitable Trust i.e. M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (APIL) which was a [2014] 267 CTR prohibited person, it was held that assessee trust has violated 305 (Delhi) provisions of section 13(l)(c), as such, exemption u/s 11 was denied.

It is submitted that in the instant case, assesses has not infringed the provisions of section 13(l)(c) of the Act as donations were given to the trusts having common trustees, and such donations were not utilized for the benefit of the trustees but were utilized towards the attainment of its objects and such trusts have also utilized the sum towards the charitable objects as such, provisions of section 13(l)(c) is inapplicable. Further in respect of purchase of vehicles, it is submitted that vehicles have been utilized towards the purposes of the trust and there is no even any allegation that such vehicles have been used for the benefit of the trustees, as such, aforesaid judgment is inapplicable ACITMvs. Graphic It is submitted that aforesaid order fully supports the case of the Era Educational assessee and in fact, appeal of the revenue was dismissed. In this Society 108 TTJ case, AO denied exemption holding that, assessee was charging 608 (Delhi). hefty fee from students and imparting education in return, and, thus, it was earning profit and not doing any charity. It was however found that assessee was duly recognized by HNB Garhwal University and strictly following university regulations with regard to admission charging of fees and course curriculum and had on its governing body nominee of State Government, HNB University and AICTE functioning under Human Resources Ministry and, thus, in fact Government managed and moreover, any surplus arising to society was utilized into activities of society and did not find its way to pocket of persons who were running society/institution as such, exemption was allowed to the assessee. The facts of the instant case are identical to the aforesaid case

i. D1T(E) vs. M/SBagri Foundation (ITA No. 19/2010 dated 2nd July, 2010) ii JK Charitable Trust [1992] 196 ITR 31 (All.); iii. Nirmala Bakubhai Foundation [1997] 226 ITR 394 (Guj.) 1.8 That aforesaid submission is further supported by the instruction issued by CBDT i.e. Instruction : No, 1132, dated 5-1- 1978, wherein CBDT has issued following instructions: Page | 27 ITO V Swami Omkarananad saraswati Charitable Trust A Y 2010-11 ITA 3744 /Del/2014 & CIO 104/del/2015 "The issue has been considered by the Board and it has been decided that as the law stands at present, the payment of a sum by one charitable trust to another for utilisation by the donee trust towards its charitable objects is proper application of income for charitable purpose in the hands of the donee trust; and the donor trust will not lose exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely because the donee trust did not spend the donation during the year of receipt itself 5.1 The findings of the Id.AO and the averments of the Id.ARs have been carefully considered. The main finding of the Id.AO on this issue revolves around the facts that the donations have been given to Trusts in which the Trustee of the Appellant are also members. The mere fact that such an arrangement exits is not in itself sufficient to invoke the relevant clauses of section 13, as has been done by the Id.AO. There is no finding indicating any collusive arrangement whereby the donated funds are being siphoned off for activities other than charitable. In the absence of such a findings the action of Id.AO cannot be supported.