Ita/696/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shree Public Chartibale Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE Q DAY OF MARCH 2015) PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN| AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.696/2009 Between: 1. THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING,QUEENS ROADBANGALORE 2. THER DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAXEXEMPTIONS, C R BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. APPHLLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: SHRBB PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST|294/C, 17 MAIN,IDEAL HOMBS TOWNSHIPRAJARAJBSHWARI NAGAR.BANGALORE — 560098._ RESPONDENT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED29-05-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.1471/BNG/2008|PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE|THRE ORDER PASSED BY THE [TAIT BANGALORE I ITA NO.1471/BNG/2008 DATED 29-05-2009 AND|CONFIRMTHE.ORDER|OF|THE.APPBRLLATECOMMISSIONERCONFIRMINGTHE.ORDER|PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,|(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE. THIS APPBAL COMING ON FOR HBARING THIS)DAY,|VINEETSARANJ*9>DHBLIVBREDTHE.FOLLOWING:| JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the order passedby the ITAT dated 29.05.2009 whereby the order ofthe Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) dated|31.10.2008 refusing to renew the certificate under|section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act has been set-aside and a direction has been issued to renew the|approval under Section 8O0(G) of the Act of theappellant. 2. We have heard Sri K V Aravind, learnedcounsel for the appellant as well as Sri A Shankar,|learned counsel for the respondent and perused the|recorads. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: - the respondent — assessee is a charitable trust|duly registered and it applied for grant of exemption|under Section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act which wasinitially granted to the assessee upto the period|31.03.2008. The renewal was denied by the Director|without assigning any reasons and by merely stating|that certain clauses of the trust deed, giving out|objects, were not charitable in nature, in view oOtinsertion of proviso to Section 15(2) which came into|effect from 1.4.2008. It was also stated by the|Director that the amendment was sought in the trust|deed which was rejected on 24.10.2008 and as such,the renewal oI approval was rejected. 4. The tribunal has, in its order, considered theobjects of the trust deed which the Director had|referred to and has come to the conclusion that the|said objects were all of charitable nature and were|not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act.From a plain reading of the order of the Director, it 1sclear that the same has been passed without even| Specifying as to which of the objects, and how the|same, were not charitable in nature. It has also not|been mentioned or clarified in the order as to why onthe same objects the trust had been granted|exemption under Section 8O(G) earlier, and it was|being denied at this stage. Oo. Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act wasinserted with etfect from 1.4.2009 and not from|1.4.2008 as has been mentioned by the Director in|his order. The order of the Director was totally devoidol reasons and thus, the same was rightly set-aside|by the Tribunal and aiter considering all the objects|mentioned in the trust deed as well as Section 2(15)of the Act and also the proviso to the said Section,|the Tribunal has, in our view, rightly come to the|conclusion that denial of approval under Section|8O0(G) of the Income Tax Act was not justified. 6. Sri Aravind has made attempt to justify theorder of the Director stating that the religious| activities would not be covered under the definition ot‘charitable purpose’ and according to the learned|counsel, certain objects relating to construction of‘prayer house’ etc. would come within the ambit otfteligious purpose’. 6. Sri Aravind has made attempt to justify theorder of the Director stating that the religious| activities would not be covered under the definition ot‘charitable purpose’ and according to the learned|counsel, certain objects relating to construction of‘prayer house’ etc. would come within the ambit otfteligious purpose’. 7/7. This is an attempt made by the learnedcounsel for the appellant to justify the order of the|Director, which justification has not been taken by|the Director himself. Even otherwise, on merits also,we are not satistied with the aforesaid objection|raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as, in|OUTopinion,constructionOt.“prayerhall’OT|encouraging meditation yoga etc. would not be|religious activities. We are, thus, not satisfied with|the submission of the learned counsel for the'appellant, especially when such is not the ground|which has been taken by the Director while denying|approval to the assessee. | 8. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the.opinion that no substantial question of law arises in|this appeal for determination and as such, no|interference is called for with the order impugned in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Therewill be no order as to costs. sd/- JUDGE. Sd/-. JUDGE