Ita/23/2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. M/S Gaushala Trust Society, Ambala City

119IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.23 of 2019 (O&M)Date of decision : 26.08.2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Chandigarh ...... Appellant VerTSU M/s Gaushala Trust Society, Spatu Road,Ambala City, Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARTHON'BLE MR.JUSTICEHARNARESH SINGH GILL ... Present ;Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocatefor the appellant. ... AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1]This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench ‘A’, Chandigarhdated 11.07.2018 reversing that of the Commissioner, Income Tax,Chandigarh whereby the Commissioner had refused registration underSection 12 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) to therespondent-Gaushala. ?DThe respondent admittedly runs a Gaushala where there are540 odd cows. It had applied for registration under Section 12 A of theAct and the same was rejected by the Commissioner holding :- (1) that the respondent did not have any property in its name(11) that it had large FDRs. (111)that out of total revenue of Rs.1.36 crores for the year ending 31.03.2017 it had spent only Rs.1.44 lakhs on providing medicines to the cows. (iv)that it was selling milk which the cows in its possessionwere producing. 3The respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal whichnoticed that the respondent had claimed that only about 15% to 20% ofthe cows were yielding milk. The Tribunal further noticed that theDeputy Director, ICD Project Ambala City had certified that the amountof milk which was being produced by the respondent would be the yieldof about 75 to 80 cows. The Tribunal noticed that earlier the respondentwas functioning from its own premises but those premises were acquiredby the Government and the compensation amount was put in a fixeddeposit because the present premises which were occupied by therespondent were under litigation and therefore the respondent wasjustified in keeping this fixed deposit amount so that in case it had tovacate the present premises it could acquire some other suitable premisesfor itself. The Tribunal also noticed that the Commissioner had given acompletely presumptuous finding that the objects of the respondent wereto look after only sick and injured cows where as the object of therespondent was to maintain all the cows. The Tribunal noticed that theCommissioner inexplicably did not understand or could not understandthat the society was maintaining and feeding and looking after 540 cowsand therefore the finding that it was spending only a meager amount ofits earning was wrong. The Tribunal also noticed that the finding of theCommissioner that since the respondent had no immovable property itcould not claim benefit was wrong, 4We are in agreement with the views of the Tribunal.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 5 Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M.Application, if any, also stands disposed of, (AJAY TEWARITJUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)JUDGE26.08.2019pooja sharma-lWhether speaking/reasonedYes/NoWhether Reportable |Yes/No