Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. According to the ld. CIT, the amendment to the original trust deed could not be accepted where original name and address of the trust was changed without seeking prior clearance from the Income- tax department. We cannot see in any of the sections 11, 12 and 13 any provision which says that an assessee cannot make any changes of the like mentioned, without getting prior clearance from the Income tax department. Related Rule 17A, 17B and 17C of the I.T. Rules also do not mention anywhere that an assessee has to get any previous sanction from the I.T. department before effecting any I.T.A. No. 1331/Mds/2010 such amendments. In our opinion, the department cannot fasten on the assessee a duty more than what has been prescribed under the statute and by doing so, the department was taking up the role of a law making authority and indulging in acts which are ultra vires the powers vested on it. It is to be noted that this was the first application ever moved by the assessee for such a registration. Second reason cited by the ld. CIT is that 25 persons had initially invested in land by contributing entire money in cash and further brought in a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. According to him, many of the trustees did not have taxable income and investments made by them were questionable in their respective hands. We find that the Act specifies a methodology where anonymous receipts are received by a trust. Section 115 BBC of the Act specify a method for taxing anonymous donations. Thus even if we consider that the trustees were not having any wherewithal to contribute the sums mentioned and even if we treat such donations as coming from anonymous sources, it would not be reason to deny registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Third reason cited by the ld. CIT is that the trust was charging exorbitant amounts as school fees and was spending only a small part towards the salary of the teachers and other related expenses.