Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), 3Rd Floor, Kailash Heights, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur v. Keshar Devi Godara Samajik Kalyan, Sansthan Singor, Vpo: Singor, Via Bhokri Distt. Jhunjhunu

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 207 / 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), 3rd Floor, Kailash Heights, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Keshar Devi Godara Samajik Kalyan, Sansthan Singor, VPO: Singor, Via Bhokri Distt. Jhunjhunu ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Daksh Pareek for Mr. Sameer Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 20/07/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowedthe appeal of the assessee while considering the evidence onrecord. 2.We are in complete agreement with the view taken by thetribunal. 3.Similarly view was taken in tax appeal no.276/2016 decidedon 7.12.2016 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Hemdha MediResources Pvt. Ltd.) wherein it has been observed as under:- “5. In this regard the Tribunal in para 2.9 has observed as under:- “2.9. We have heard the rival contentions andperused the material available on record. Firstly, it isinteresting to note that it is for the third time that the appellant has filed the Judgment 20/07/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowedthe appeal of the assessee while considering the evidence onrecord. 2.We are in complete agreement with the view taken by thetribunal. 3.Similarly view was taken in tax appeal no.276/2016 decidedon 7.12.2016 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Hemdha MediResources Pvt. Ltd.) wherein it has been observed as under:- “5. In this regard the Tribunal in para 2.9 has observed as under:- “2.9. We have heard the rival contentions andperused the material available on record. Firstly, it isinteresting to note that it is for the third time that the appellant has filed the subject application under section 80G(5) and on theprevious occasions, the reasons cited by the ld CITvaries from assessee not registered u/s 12AA toregistration certificate u/s 12AA not enclosed withthe application and hence, it is not eligible forapproval u/s 80G(5)(vi). The reasons cited in theimpugned order states that seeing the insignificantnature of activity, the case does not seems to be fitfor granting exemption u/s 80G at this stage. Thequestion that arises for consideration is whether thereason cited by the ld CIT justifies denial of approvalunder section 80G(5) of the Act. On perusal ofsection 80(5) as well as Rule 11AA, what is requiredto be seen is whether the institution/fund has beenestablished in India for a charitable purpose or not.Secondly, it lays down certain additional conditionsunder clause (i) to clause (v) which are required tobe fulfilled. Rule 11AA provides that where the CIT issatisfied that one or more of the conditions specifiedin clause (i) to clause (v) of section 80G(5) are notfulfilled, he shall reject the application for approvalafter recording his reasons for such rejection. In theinstant case, the appellant has been duly registeredunder section 12AA which shows beyond any doubtthat ld CIT has already verified the genuineness ofthe objects and its activities are not doubted by theCIT. Hence, having granted registration u/s 12AA,the first condition regarding establishment ofinstitutionforcharitablepurposesisfulfilled.Regardingsatisfactionofadditionalconditions specified in clause (I) to clause (v) ofsection 80G(5), there is no dispute as apparent fromthe order of the ld CIT. As can be seen fromRevenue’s stand of rejection of earlier applicationsfiled by the appellant,the approval under section 80Gis closely linked to approval under section 12AA.Now once, the registration under section 12AA hasbeen granted, the approval under section 80Gshould not be denied unless the case of theappellant falls under nonfulfillment of one or more ofthe conditions specified in section 80G(5) which isnot the case before us. Regarding the activitiescarried out by the appellant towards achievement ofits object for establishment of the hospital andmedical college, it cannot be said that assessee hasnot yet commenced any activity. The CIT hasaccepted that assessee has taken steps forimplementation of its objects in as much as it hasacquired the land, converted the land forinstitutional use for setting up the hospital project,appointed the architect., carried out soil testing etc.All these activities are towards the achieving theobjects of the trust. The registration under section25 of the companies Act has been granted on 13.10.2012, subsequently the land was acquired on29.3.2013 and thereafter other activities likeconversion of land use, appointment of architectsand soil testing has been done. The project ofsetting up hospital and medical college is a complexproject requiring various approvals, clearances etcwhich the appellant has been complying with. It iscritical that as part of fund raising programme forthis project, the appellant has sought the approvalunder section 80G whereby the donations can beaccepted for approved purposes and the project canbe expedited. The approval under section 80G willthus aid and provide the necessary support insuccessful completion of the project. In our view, ldCIT (Exemption) was not correct in denying theapproval under section 80G(5) to the appellant.” 6. We make it clear that the observations which aremade by the Tribunal are required to be accepted forthis year. If the activity is not started in two years,as contemplated, it will be open for authority to takesteps for withdrawal of the registration. Nosubstantial question of law is involved.” In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Bmg/27.