(Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii_ v. Satna Seva Bharti)_

ITA-80-2015 (PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IIVs SATNA SEVA BHARTI) 28-10-2015 Shri S. Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we findthat in this appeal filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act by the Revenue, the following question of law hasbeen indicated for consideration :- �Whether on the facts and circumstance of thecase, the order of the Ld. Tribunal is perverse onthe facts in directing the Commission of theIncome Tax to grant approval u/s 80G(5)(vi)overlooking the grounds of rejection as evidencedin the order of the Commissioner of Income Taxdated 28.06.2013 and relying on additionalevidence submitted before Tribunal by theassessee without subjecting it to verification bythe Commissioner?� The assessee claim to be a trust and sought exemptionand approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income TaxAct. The competent authority examined the matter and inPara � 2 of its order found that the object of the trust as isindicated in Para � 1 reproduced and thereafter found thatthe committee has shown expenses under three headingsnamely �Matrachaya Expenses�, �ProjectExpenses� and �Seva Bharti� Expenses. However, after going though various vouchers and documents ofexpenditure, the Commissioner found that except for filingsome vouchers pertaining to purchase of food items whichwas said to be used for the orphans in the Matrachaya, novouchers or documents are adduced to say as to what are theexpenses incurred under the heading Project Expenses andSeva Bharti Expenses and as to how these expenses arerelating to the utility and work of the trust. Finding that theexpenses for furthering the object of the trust is notestablished, the application under Section 80G(5)(vi) wasrejected by holding that the requirement of the said statutehas not been fulfilled. However, when the matter was re-examined by the appellate Tribunal, at the instance of theassessee, the Tribunal did not deal with the finding of factrecorded by the Commissioner as indicated hereinabove. Instead, in a very causal manner held that they have gonethough the record and found that the trust is entitled forexemption and granted exemption. In our considered view,the question of law relating to perversity of the findingclearly established. In the present case while dealing withthe matter the Commissioner has given cogent reason to saythat the expenditure incurred for purpose of the trust is notestablished while interfering with this finding, the learnedTribunal has not given any reason as to why this finding isincorrect and how it can be said to be contrary to the evidence available on record. The Tribunal should haveconsidered the evidence available on record and then held asto why the finding of the Commissioner is unsustainable, asto what is the material available to show that therequirement of Section 80G(5)(vi) are fulfilled, therefore,exemption can be granted. The Tribunal has not dischargedthese responsibilities properly, instead, in a very casualmanner, the appeal has been decided and the approvalgranted under Section 80G(5)(vi). In our view, the Tribunalhas recorded a perverse finding and the question of lawformulated to be answered in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, answering the question in favour of therevenue, we allow the appeal, quash the order and remandthe matter back to the appellant Tribunal for re-consideration and deciding the matter afresh in accordancewith law. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON)JUDGE (KESHAV KUMAR TRIVEDI)JUDGE