Commissioner Of Income Taxchennai v. M/S.desperate For Him Ministries

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 05.01.2015 Coram The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARandThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH Tax Case (Appeal) No.319 of 2012 Commissioner of Income TaxChennai. .... Appellant/Respondent Vs. M/s.Desperate for Him Ministries,94/95, Avalkara Street, Kosapet,Vellore - 632 001. .... Respondent/Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the orderdated 29.5.2012 made in I.T.A.No.690/Mds/2012 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai against the order ofthe Director of the Income Tax (Exemptions) Chennai made in DIT(E)No.2(409)/11-12 dated 23.2.2012. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Standing counsel for Income Tax For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar ------J U D G M E N T(Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) This Tax Case (Appeal) is filed by the Revenue as against theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising the followingsubstantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right inholding that the assessee trust is entitled forregistration under Section 12AA of the Act?" 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submits thatthe issue involved in this appeal is covered by a decision of thisCourt in T.C.(A)No.579 of 2013 dated 27.01.2014, wherein this Court,following the decision of this Court reported in (2012) 206 Taxman 69(CIT V. Arulmighu Sri Kamatchi Amman Trust), dismissed the appealfiled by the Revenue holding that the Revenue would not be justifiedin refusing the grant of registration at the threshold. For better https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clarity, the relevant portion of the decision of this Court reads asfollows: "9. In the present case also, the Revenue onlyquestions the trust not having commenced its activity forthe grant of registration. The provision under Section 12AAof the Income Tax Act does not stipulate such a conditionfor grant of registration. On the other hand, Section 12AA(1) contemplates satisfaction of the Commissioner about theobjects of the Trust and the genuineness of the activitiesand make such enquiry as may be necessary for the purpose ofgrant of registration. In so considering the application,the Commissioner has to give an opportunity to the assesseeas provided for under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section12AA. Under sub-section (3) of Section 12AA, theCommissioner is given power to cancel the registration, ifhe satisfies that the objects of such trust are not genuineor not being carried on in accordance with the objects ofthe trust. When such an authority is vested with theCommissioner to cancel the registration in the event of thetrust not being carried on in accordance with the objects ofthe trust, we do not find any ground to say that merely onthe date of the application, the assessee trust had notcommenced its activities, hence, registration could not begranted. It is not denied by the assessee that on the dateof the application under Section 12AA, it was yet tocommence its operation. But nevertheless the genuineness ofthe objects of the trust were not questioned by theCommissioner. Considering the fact that the continuance ofregistration is further a subject matter of scrutiny by theCommissioner as contemplated under Section 12AA(3) of theIncome Tax Act, we do not think that the Revenue would bejustified in refusing the registration at the threshold.The Tribunal had followed the decision of the Gujarat HighCourt in the case of CIT V. Kutchi Dasa Oswal Moto PariwarAmbama Trust reported in 29 Taxman 228. We respectfullyagree with the decision of the Gujarat High Court." 3. The above-said view was followed by this Court, in which oneof us was a party (R.Sudhakar,J) in T.C.(A)No.261 of 2014 dated22.8.2014. 3. The above-said view was followed by this Court, in which oneof us was a party (R.Sudhakar,J) in T.C.(A)No.261 of 2014 dated22.8.2014. 4. Accordingly, following the decision of this Court in T.C.(A)No.579 of 2013 dated 27.01.2014, this Tax Case (Appeal) standsdismissed. The question of law is answered against the Revenue. Nocosts.sl-s/d- Assistant Registrar(J) Dt:21/1/2015 True Copy Sub-Assistant RegistrarTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.3. The Director of Income Tax(Exemptions) Chennai.+ 1 cc to Mr.J.Narayanasamy, Advocate SR 100+ 1 cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR 432ak(co)prk29/1Tax Case (Appeal) No.319 of 2012