Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"19. Coming to other observations of the CIT for cancellation of registration of trust u/s 12AA(3). The CIT observed that the trust js not maintaining proper books of account and not filed regular returns of income as prescribed under law. As regards observations of the CIT with regard to non maintenance of books of account and non filing of regular returns of income it was submitted that it is true returns of income from the A.Y. 2007-08 have not been filed regularly and such returns have been filed after search but before the Commissioner issued her show cause notice on 6-9-2013 which is evident from the fact that returns of income up to A.Y. 2011-12 have been filed before 21-8-2013, The trust has filed regular returns for A.Y, 2012-13 and subsequent years. The AR further submitted that even assuming that there is delay in filing returns of income, it cannot be said that it is fatal so as to withdraw registration u/s 12AA(3). Non filing of returns is purely a procedural laps which can be cured by filing return of income or some other penal provision is provided to deal with non filing return of income, but it cannot be a ground for cancellation of registration as long as the trust objects are charitable in nature and its activities are carried out in accordance with its objects. Therefore, we are of the view that non maintenance of regular books of accounts, belated filing of returns of income, are all by way of passing reference having no relevance to whether or not the assessee was pursuing education, as its main object. There are no facts brought out in the impugned order regarding the genuineness of the activities of the trust or as to whether the object of education was not pursued by the assessee as its main and predominant activity. In fact, the order of the CIT does not anywhere show that the assessee is not imparting education. The complaint of the revenue seems to be that education is being imparted on commercial lines. The definition of 'Charitable Purpose' is given in Sec.2(15) of the Act. The same refers to "relief to poor, medical relief, education and the advancement of any other object of general public utility". The proviso I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 to Sec.2(15) of the Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1.4.2008 regarding excluding organizations where there is profit motive from the definition of charitable purpose applies only to the category of trusts which has as its object, the object of "advancement of any other object of general public utility". It does not apply to the other categories of charitable purpose viz., "relief to poor, education and medical relief. It is also not a necessary element in a charitable purpose that it should provide something for nothing or for less than it costs or for less than the ordinary price. The surplus generated, if it is held for charitable purpose and applied for charitable purpose of the assessee, and then the assessee has to be considered as existing for charitable purpose. There are enough safeguards provided in Sees.12 and 13 of the Act to ensure that personal benefits of the persons in control of the trusts are not treated as having applied for charitable purpose and for being brought to tax like provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) of the Act which restricts unreasonable and excessive payments to certain category of persons connected with a trust or other institution. In such circumstances, we are of the view, that the order u/s 12AA(3) of the Act, cannot be sustained."

21. Unquestionably, the onus for proving the existence of factors calling for cancellation of registration granted to an institution is on the Department rather than on the institution. In the present case, the CIT has miserably failed to discharge such onus. No material has been brought by the CIT that the assessee society exists for profit motive. The Department has not been able to discharge its onus of showing as to how the conditions for grant of registration have been breached by the assessee. The assessee remained enjoying the registration granted to it for the last number of years under the same unchanged facts and circumstances. It has also not been demonstrated by the Department as to how the approach of the assessee has turned to a commercial one. The predominant object of the assessee is and remains to carry out I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 charitable purpose of advancement of education, and not to earn profit. In fact, no profit has been established to have been earned by the assessee. The CIT has failed to specify as to how profit earning is the predominant activity of the assessee instead of carrying out its said charitable purpose. On the other hand, the assessee has filed various details of income from property held under trust and application of income for charitable purpose as per which its application of income for its object is more than its income generated from property held under trust for all these years. In fact, its application of income is more than 100% which is evident from the fact that the assesses has filed chart showing income and expenditure as per which its expenditure is 118% to 140% for the A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y. 2011-12.(Refer page No. 157 of PB). In any of the year, the trust is having surplus. Insofar as the observations of the CIT with regard to expenditure incurred for charitable purpose, we find that the CIT's observations are baseless as the administrative expenditure shown by the assessee in its financial statements predominantly consists of amount spent for objects of the trust which is evident from the fact that the assessee has filed a statement of expenditure showing details of administrative expenses which is enclosed in paper book page no. 159. Therefore, the allegation of the CIT that the trust is running education on profit motive in baseless and without any application of mind. Therefore, the assessee Trust cannot be deprived of the benefit of promissory estoppel against the Department to allow the assessee to keep on enjoying the registration granted to it long ago. No finding has been recorded by the IT that any part of the income of the assessee society has been misutilised. Thus, the cancellation of the registration granted to the assessee Trust has been erroneously ordered.

9.9.2 In view of the above discussions, we are inclined to allow this ground of appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 258-260/Coch/2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. On the other hand, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.261/Coch/2018 for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

10. The next common ground, Ground No. 4 in ITA Nos. 258-261/Coch/2018 reads as follows:

I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the CIT(A) should have noted that since the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A, the only precondition in granting exemption u/s. 11 was mandatory application of 85% o the income received, towards the objects of the trust. The CIT(A) should have noted that for an institution which is charitable in nature, once it has complied with the condition that it should compulsorily spend 85% of the income received during the same year, then there is no scope for denial of exemption in total. As long as this amount has been applied for the purposes of the objects of the Trust, the same cannot be held to be taxable. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the receipts may be voluntary or involuntary but as long as it is applied for the purpose of charity in furtherance of the objects of the Trust, exemption cannot be denied to the institution and no income could be assessed as taxable income. Section 11 and 11(4A) makes it abundantly clear that, the property held under the Trust can even be a business as long as it is in furtherance of the objects of the Trust and the surplus is used for the purpose of objects of charity as per the objects of the Trust, then there is no question of taxing any part of the income of the assessee.