|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5544 (Luck-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Where CIT(E) while rejecting the application under section 80G ignored the objects as contained in the object clause of Memorandum of Association whereas he himself had noted that assessee had spent an amount towards health and further an amount was spent on education and help to poor, therefore, once registration under section 12A was given, the registration under section 80G can be denied if the activities are not genuine.
Deduction under section 80G(5) - Grant of registration under section 80G denied - Assessee was enjoying the registration under section 12A -
Assessee was granted registration under section 12A. CIT(E) refused to grant registration to assessee under section 80G in view of his objection that assessee was granted registration under section 12A for religious or general public utility purposes and the registration was not granted for charitable purposes, i.e., relief of poor and medical relief and whereas assessee had spent amount on healthcare education and relief to poor. CIT(E) held that assessee had not undertaken any activities towards attainment of objects of general public utility for which the registration was granted. Held: CIT(E) while rejecting the application under section 80G ignored the objects as contained in the object clause of Memorandum of Association, whereas he himself has noted that assessee had spent an amount towards health and further an amount was spent on education and help to poor. These all expenditure represent expenditure for charitable purposes which is mentioned in object clause of assessee. Though registration granted under section 12A mentioned the purpose of registration as religious or general public utility but object clauses of assessee clearly shows that main object of assessee were promotion of health and imparting of education. CIT(E) in dismissing the application of assessee did not hold any stand. Moreover, once registration under section 12A was given, the registration under section 80G can be denied if the activities are not genuine.
Followed:NN. Desai Charitable Trust v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 452 (Guj) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0642 (Guj-HC), Samekit Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Sansthan v. CIT [ITA No. 666/LKW/2017, dt. 16-11-2018], Samajik Pragya Prasar Samiti v. CIT (Exemption) ITA No.343/Agr/2016 : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 612 (Agra-Trib), Marathi Vidyan Parishad Nashik Vibhag v. CIT [ITA No. 1465/PN/2014 Order, dated 20-5-2016], Pujya Shri Jalarambapa Ane Matushri Virbaima Charitable Trust v. CIT (2014) 55 taxmann.com 52 (Rjt), B.P.H.E Society v. ITO [ITA No. 111/PN/2010, vide Order, dated 30-8-2011], Maa Bhagwati Samagra Utthan Trust v. CIT [ITA No. 293/Agr/2009, dated 18-3-2011] and Dr. Gyanendra Goel Foundation v. CIT (Exemption) [ITA No. 173 /AGR/2017, Order, dated 8-3-2018]Relied:Hiralal Bhagwati v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 188 (Guj.) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1345 (Guj-HC)
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
IN THE ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT