Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) Chaturvedi Har Prasad Educational Society v. CIT, 46 DTR (Lucknow) (Trib) 121
(iii) Bharat Jyoti v. CIT, 63 DTR (Lucknow)(Trib) 409 In both these decisions, it has been laid out that in an action u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act, the objects of the charitable trust cannot be re-examined by the DIT and that the two conditions laid out in section 12AA(3) should be satisfied before registration granted can be cancelled.

18. With regard to rental income from letting out the community hall, we are of the view that the decision of the Madras High court squarely supports the plea of the assessee that they cannot be regarded as business income. In our view, DIT(E) has distinguished those decisions relied upon by the assessee on rather flimsy grounds. The fact that the letting out was on a daily basis or fixed period of time, will not change the character of income. We are also of the view that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Subharam Trust (supra) are on a totally different set of facts. It was a case of grant of deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. On facts, it was found that the kalyana mantap had been let out to one of the trustees and on those facts, the Hon'ble High court accepted the view of the Tribunal that the objects of the trust were not charitable and certificate u/s. 80-G of the Act cannot be granted. We are of the view that the aforesaid decision cannot help the case of the revenue in so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, where the letting out of the Kalyana Mandap for use by the general public is not denied. We are also of the view that the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Daulat Ram Public Trust (supra) is totally on different facts. It was a case where some of the objects of the trust were charitable and some were non-charitable. The trustees had the absolute discretion to apply the income to any of the objects. It was on those facts that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to the benefits of section 11 of the Act.

Thus, a charitable trust or institution pursuing advancement of object of general public utility may be a charitable trust in one year and not a charitable trust in another year depending on the aggregate value of receipts from commercial activities.
There is, therefore, need to expressly provide in law that exemption would be available for a previous year, to a trust or institution to which firs proviso of sec.2(15) become applicable for that particular previous year.

The DIT(E) in exercise of his powers u/s 12AA(3) of the Act, cannot curtail the right of an assessee which is charitable trust or institution which pursues the advancement of objects of general public utility from claiming the exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act in a year in which the receipts of the charitable organization from commercial activities is less than the limits prescribed in the second proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act. It is, thus, clear from the reading of the provisions of Sec.2(15) of the IT Act, 1961 as well as Sec.12AA(3) of the Act, that registration already granted u/s 12A cannot be revoked for the reasons that the charitable trust or institution pursuing of advancement of objects of general public utility carries on commercial activities. On this short ground, the order u/s12AA(3) is liable to be cancelled and is hereby cancelled."