Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) During search proceedings it was noticed that certain funds had been transferred from bank account of the trust to the savings bank accounts of trustees/other individuals and they were using the same for their benefit by withdrawing from their account. No explanation has been offered by the Trust on this issue. Furthermore, there are details of having paid the money across multiple transactions to Dr, Manonmani, Dr. Raman, Mr. Patil and Mrs. Rupa. Dr. Manonrnani is a daughter of Mr. M R Hulinaykar, who happens to be the founder of the Trust, Dr. Raman is a son of Mr, M R Hulinaykar and also a trustee himself. Mr. Patil is husband Of Mrs. Ambika, and is a key person in day-to-day affairs of the Trust. Mrs. Rupa is one of the key employees of the Trust and is associated with the Trust since a long time. No documentary or otherwise evidences have been submitted by the Trust in this regard in order to justify that the said payments were towards the Shri Shridevi Charitable Trust, Tumkur objectives of the Trust. Such diversion of trust receipts for personal benefits of the trustees attracts provisions of Section 13(1)(c)of the Act.

Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section, the following shall mean "specified violation",--

Shri Shridevi Charitable Trust, Tumkur

a) Where any income derived from property held under trust, wholly or in part for charitable or religious purposes, has been applied, other than for the objects of the trust or institution; or

b) The trust or institution has income from profits and gains of business which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or separate books of account are not maintained by such trust or institution in respect of the business which is incidental to the attainment of its objectives; or

(v)The decision of Krupanidhi Educational Trust Vs. DIT (E) - 152 TTJ 673, wherein it is held as under :-

The DIT(E) in the order u/s 12AA(3) of the Act, do not make out any case, which can show the activities of the assessee are not genuine or that the activities of the assessee are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution. The fact that the Assessee was paying commission to persons who solicit students for studying in the Assessee's institution cannot lead to the conclusion that the Assessee is not imparting education. Similarly purchase of a BMW car, borrowing of loans from Sindhi Financiers, non maintenance of regular books of accounts, violations of provisions of Sec.13(1)( c) of the Act in as much as the trustees were paid enormous salary are all by way of passing reference having norelevance to whether or not the Assessee was pursuing education as its main object. There are no facts brought out Shri Shridevi Charitable Trust, Tumkur 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 DIT(E) does not anywhere show that the assessee is not imparting education. The complaint of the revenue seems to be that education is being imparted but 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 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". As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee, eleemosynary element is not essential element of charity. 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 assesse, and then the Assessee has to be considered as existing for a charitable purpose. There are enough safeguards provided in Sec.12 and 13 of the Act to ensure that personal benefits of thepersons 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, the order u/s 12AA(3) of the Act, cannot be sustained.

The provisions of section 12AA of the Act, deals with procedure for registration of trust/institutions. As per said section, the Commissioner shall look into the objects of the trust and its activities and satisfy himself about that the objects of the trust are charitable in nature and its activities are genuine and such activities are carried out in accordance with its objects. Sub-section (3) inserted with effect from 1st Oct., 2004 empowers the Commissioner to cancel the registration of a trust or institution granted under clause (b) of sub-section (1) when subsequent to grant of registration the Commissioner is satisfied that activities of trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with objects of the trust or institution.Basic purpose of s. 12AA(3) is to check misuse of exemption under pretext of carrying out charitable activities when the same are not so. The CIT has to make out clear case for exercising powers u/s. 12AA(3). In this case, so far as object of trust is concerned, it is nowhere disputed that assessee is engaged in imparting education. Once an institution came within the phrase "exists solely for educational purpose and not for profit" no other condition like application of income was required to be complied with. The mere existence of profit/surplus did not disqualify the institution. Breach of the conditions of the trust deed would not disentitle the institution from getting the benefit which the institution had been granted earlier being a charitable trust. Nowhere in her order, the CIT has taken any objection to the charitable and educational nature of the institution. In fact, the objects of the institution as declared in the trust deed do reflect that all are philanthropic or benevolent in nature, precisely, for the purpose of imparting education. Strange enough, there is no finding recorded by the CIT contrary to this fact.Rather, this is also not the case of the CIT that the institution is doing some other activity of earning profit other than the activity of running educational institutions. The established factual position is that the institution is not doing any other activity except running educational institutions. In such circumstances, the action of cancellation of registration cannot be upheld. As far as the object of the assessee is Shri Shridevi Charitable Trust, Tumkur concerned, this is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee was not imparting education. Since the question about the imparting of education has not been doubted or challenged by the Revenue, the impugned order passed by the CIT is unsustainable in law. Strange enough again, there is nothing on record to prove even sightlessly that the purpose of imparting education was not fulfilled by this institute, thus the Revenue Department has failed to establish that there was any illegal activity or infringement of law so as to doubt the genuineness of the activities.