The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi v. M/s. Shri Dehati Stapana Nyas
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Tax Appeal No. 5 of 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi... Versus ... M/s. Shri Dehati Stapana Nyas... ... Appellant Respondent --- CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH --- For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate --- Order No.12 Dated 19 th December, 2013 Heard learned counsel for the revenue as well as learned counsel for the respondent. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 11th July, 2011 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, in the case of the respondent being ITA No. 127/Ran/2010, whereunder it has allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order passed by CIT under Section 12A/AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It further directed the CIT to renew the registration under Section 80G and also grant registration under Section 12A/AA of the I.T. Act, 1961. The respondent had created a registered trust on 13th March, 2008 and made an application for its registration under Section 12A of the I.T.Act on 28th October, 2009 in Form no. 10A. The learned CIT vide its order dated 13th April, 2010 rejected the application for grant of such registration, which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the Memo of Appeal. It is contended on behalf of the appellant/revenue that the application was rejected inter alia, on the following grounds: (a) The objective of the trust to carry activity outside in India as well is not in conformity with the provisions of Sections 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961; (b) The respondent did not produce separate books of accounts maintained for business activity to carry out for objectives of the trust; (c) The activities do not appear to have a public character and thus they were not charitable in nature; -2- (d) It also failed to furnish complete details of donors and payments and other details for verification; (e) The trust-deed did not contain clause of dissolution providing for eventuality in respect of the assets and liabilities of the trust on its dissolution. Learned counsel submits that the order of the CIT (Appeal) was challenged by the respondent before the I.T.A.T being I.T.A No. 127/Ran/2010. The said appeal, however, was considered along with batch of several appeals and by a common impugned judgment the learned Tribunal directed the authorities to renew the registration of the trust while setting aside the order of the learned CIT. It has been contended on behalf of the revenue that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind as it fails to address several of the grounds which form the basis for rejection of the application of the respondent by CIT. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact the trust of the present respondent was never registered earlier and the findings recorded at the concluding paragraph of the impugned order directs the CIT to renew the registration under Section 80G to the applicants, one of whom was also the respondent. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has failed to address itself to the relevant provisions of Section 12A/AA of I.T.Act. and also not dealt with the grounds and reasoning which were the basis for rejection of the application of the respondent. The present appeal has, therefore, been filed on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was correct in law in quashing the order u/s 12A of the I.T.Act,1961 passed by the CIT without going in depth the basis of rejection taken by CIT ? (ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned ITAT was correct in not appreciating basic and specific procedure enshrined -3- u/s 12AA(3) of the Act whereby the CIT rejected the registration after giving ample opportunity to establish the charitable nature of the Trust ? (iii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned ITAT is correct in passing a common order involving other assesse having different issues ?” We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue as well as the respondent. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that about 8 appeals were heard and allowed by a common judgment without discussing and addressing the facts and the grounds of each individual case. The appeals were allowed by a common direction. The Tribunal has held as under: “6 : On careful analysis of the order(s) passed by the learned CIT (s) and the rival submissions of all the parties. It is found that the assessee-society(s) was/were given registration under section 12AA and renewal was granted under section 80G for earlier years, therefore, it cannot be said that the material filed by the assessee(s) is incorrect. In this background, we are of the considered view that these are the fit cases to renew the registration of the Trusts and the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT are not in accordance with law. Hence, the same are hereby set aside by directing the CIT(s) to renew the registration under section 80G and also grant of registration under section 12A/AA of the I.T. Act 1961 as prayed for by the assessee(s) in different application(s), by allowing appeals of the assessee(s).” Admittedly, so far as the respondent-trust is concerned, the trust was created on 13.3.2008 and the application was made on 28.10.2009 for its registration under Section 12A of the I.T.Act. for the first time. The Tribunal was not right in giving observation that the respondent-assessee was earlier given registration under Section 12A/12AA of the Act and renewal was granted under Section 80G is factually not correct and the impugned order suffers from error. Thus, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the order of Tribunal so far it relates to the present -4- appellant is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration. The questions of law are therefore left open. Pandey /jk (R. Banumathi, C.J.) (Aparesh Kumar Singh,J.)