Iapl/324/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another v. Swami Atulanand Rachna Parishad

Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 324 of 2010 Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And AnotherRespondent :- Swami Atulanand Rachna ParishadCounsel for Appellant :- Piyush AgarwalCounsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Pathak Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. Heard Shri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellantand Shri Siddharth Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax,1961(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been filed by thedepartment against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal dated 30.03.2010 for the assessment year 2007-08.The questions of law sought to be answered are as hereunder: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in lawin coming to the conclusion that registration granted to the assessee has been cancelled u/s 12-AA(3) of the Act merely on the ground that approval u/s 10(23c) (vi) of the Act had beendenied to the assessee by completely overlooking and ignoring the fact that the CIT hadcancelled the registration after having satisfied himself that the acitivities of the assesseesociety were not charitable in nature ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in lawin holding that the assessee is eligible for continued registration despite the fact that that theassessee does not fulfill the requirement of being a charitable institution?. (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in lawin not taking into consideration the decisions relied upon by the CIT in his order u/s 12-AA(3)of the Act while cancelling the registration of the assesseee society." The Tribunal has conclusively come to the conclusion thatmerely because the CIT had cancelled the registration of theassessee for grant of exemption under Section 10(23c)(vi) ofthe Act on the grounds that the assessee had received somemoney from sale of milk would not lead to the inevitableconclusion that the registration under Section 12AA of the Actcould be cancelled. The provisions for exemptions are completely different forthat of registration under Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee was an educational institution which used to providemilk to its students. During the vacations the milk was surplusand was therefore, sold. For this reason, it cannot be said thatthe objects of the charitable society itself had failed or that forthis reason the registration could be cancelled. The Tribunalhas rightly come to the conclusion that registration could nothave been cancelled. The order of the Tribunal is upheld. In view of above, the questions of law are answered in favourof the assessee and against the department. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.3.2018pks