Ranthambore Tiger Conservation, Sawai ... vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 641 & 642/JP/12
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner, when deciding an application for registration under section 12AA(1) or exemption under section 80G(5), must satisfy himself as to the genuineness of the trust's activities, and for that purpose may call for such documents or information from the trust as he thinks necessary; having done so, he must pass a reasoned order either granting or refusing registration or exemption. Where an applicant fails to furnish the information and documents required by the Commissioner or the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner may decide the application on the material on record, and the applicant's non-cooperation is a proper basis for refusal in the absence of such material; but the Commissioner must consider the applicant's legal submissions and the authorities cited in support of them before deciding, and the applicant is obliged to cooperate by furnishing the requisite details.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1
ITA No. 641 & 642/JP/12 Ranthambore Tiger Conservation Foundation, Sawai Madhopur
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, Jaipur (BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI AND SHRI T.R.MEENA)
ITA No. 641 & 642/JP/2012 U/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) & 80G(5) PAN No.AAAAR9889H
Ranthambore Tiger Conservation Vs. The Commissioner of Income Foundation, Sawai Madhopur. Tax, Kota. (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Sh.Vinod Gupta & Deepak Gupta Department by : Smt.Rolly Agarwal
Date of hearing : 06.01.2015 Date of pronouncement : 09.01.2015
ORDER
PER: T.R.MEENA,A.M.
Both the appeals enimating from the order of CIT, Kota order dated
22.02.11 u/s 12AA & u/s 80G(5) of IT Act. The effective grounds of appeals are as
under :-
2
ITA 641/JP/12 "1. Under the facts & circumstances of the case Commissioner of Income Tax Kota has erred in rejecting application made under section 12AA(1) of I.T. Act 1961, for registration of Trust on the ground of being a Government Trust & purpose of the Trust are not charitable.
2. Under the facts & Circumstances of the case CIT Kota has erred by rejecting application made by the appellant for registration as charitable trust on the ground of non production of books of accounts as it was 1st year of registration. Hence there cannot be books of accounts of previous year.
3. Under the facts & circumstances of the case CIT Kota has erred by rejecting application made by the appellant for registration as charitable trust on the ground of activities of the appellant.
The appellant's main aim & objects are object to facilitate & support the tiger reserve management for conservation of tiger & biodiversity & to facilitate Ecological, Economic, Social & Cultural Development in & around the Tiger Reserve & Protect the natural environment.
AS PER SECTION 2(15) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961, DEFINITION OF "CHARITABLE" READS AS UNDER:
"Charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, [preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest, ] and the advancement of any other object of general public utility:
IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION PRESERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT IS EXPRESSLY INCLUDED AS A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY.
3 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, reduce, amend, withndraw of all or any grounds of appeal."
ITA 642/JP/12 "1. Under the facts & circumstances of the case Commissioner of Income Tax Kota has erred in rejecting application made under section 80G(5) of I.T.Act 1961, for grant of exemption U/s 80G(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961.
2. Under the facts & Circumstances of the case CIT Kota has erred by rejecting application made by the appellant for registration as charitable trust on the ground of non production of books of accounts as it was 1st year of registration. Hence there cannot be books of accounts of previous year.
3. Under the facts & circumstances of the case CIT Kota has erred by rejecting application made by the appellant for registration as charitable trust on the ground of activities of the appellant. The appellant's main aim & objects are object to facilitate & support the tiger reserve management for conservation of tiger & biodiversity & to facilitate Ecological, Economic, Social & Cultural Development in & around the Tiger Reserve & Protect the natural environment.
AS PER SECTION 2(15) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961, DEFINITION OF "CHARITABLE" READS AS UNDER:
"Charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, [preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest, ] and the advancement of any other object of general public utility:
IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION PRESERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT IS EXPRESSLY INCLUDED AS A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY.
4 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, reduce, amend, withndraw of all or any grounds of appeal."
2. The assessee applied for registration u/s 12AA (1) on 24-09-2010. The
Ld.CIT forwarded the assessee's application to AO the verify the activity of the
foundation. The AO gave the reasonable opportunity being heard to the appellant
to submit the details of activity performed by the foundation. The appellant only
fied copy of Article of Association before the Ld.CIT & on repeated date given by
the A.O., the appellant did not appear before the AO. Therefore Ld.CIT has
decided the application for registration on the basis of material available on
record. He held that assessee's activity was is not charitable purpose and not
entitle for registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
3. Similarly, same findings has been given by the Ld.CIT not granting of
exemption u/s 80G(5) of the ITAct.
4. Being agreed by both the order of CIT the assessee carried the matter
before us. The Ld.A.R. submitted that the commissioner is required to satisfied
himself about the object of the trust or Institution and the genuineness the
activity before giving such registration the only requirement is that the object
must be charitable purpose has defined u/s 2(15) of IT Act, 1961 alongwith 5
genuineness of activity. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee had drawn our attention
on aims and object of the foundation as per memorandum and Article Association
and argued that the foundation has come into existence for preservation of
environment which includes for forest and wildlife. The foundation has been
formed by the state govt. only in compliance of the requirement of wildlife
(Protection) Amendment Act, 2006. The assessee's Ld.A.R. relied uipon recent
judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijayvargieya Vani
Charitable Trust (2014) 369 ITR 360 (Raj.), Director of Income Tax Vs. Gurdev City
Educational Trust (2011) 330 ITR 480 (Ker.), Fifth generation Education Society Vs.
CIT (1990) 185 ITR 634 (All.), Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Lucknow Vs. St. Don
Bosco Educational Society, ITA No.24/Luck/2004, Director of Income Tax
(Exemption) Vs. Panna Lalbhai Foundation, (2013) 35 taxmann.com 104 (Gujarat),
Tara Devi Trust Vs. CIT-II, ITA No.2185/Ahd/2013 & Director of Income Tax Vs.
Foundation of Ophthalmic & Optometry Research Education Center, ITA No.
1687/Del/2010.
Similarly arguments are taken by the Ld.A.R. for granting of exemption u/s 80G(5).
At the outset Ld.CIT D.R. vehemently has supported the order of the CIT & argued
that the appellant had not satisfied to the CIT for genuineness of activity of the 6
foundation. The appellant was non cooperative before the CIT. Therefore, he
rightly rejected the assessee's applications.
5. We have heard the rival submission perused the material on record. It
appears that the appellant has not submitted required detals/information before
the AO as well as the CIT. It only furnished the copy of memorandum and Article
of Association of Foundation but the CIT can call for such document or
information from the trust or institution as he think necessary in order to satisfied
himself about the genuineness of the activity of the Trust or Institution. He shall
pass an order in writing either registration or refusal of registration. Which has
been followed by the CIT in absence of required material not submitted by the
appellant. We therefore direct the Ld.CIT to reconsider the assessee both the
applications in the interest of Justice by considering the case laws cited by the
appellant. The Ld.AR of the assessee is also directed to cooperate with CIT
providing the required detail. Accodingly, we set aside both the appeals.
6. In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Sd/- Sd/- (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Jaipur Dated : 09/01/2015 7
*Basant*
Copy forwarded to :-
1. Ranthambore Tiger Conservation Foundation, Sawai Madhopur.
2. The CIT, Kota.
3. The CIT
4. The D/R
5. Guard file (ITA No.641 & 642/JP/2012) By Order
AR ITAT JAIPUR
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free