The Commi(Exemptions), Chandigarh v. Kalumal Sngwala Pvt. Family Dharamarth Trust

133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJACHANDIGARB AND HARYANA AT H ITA-76-2024 (O&M)Date of Decision: 07.08.2024 THE COMMI(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH . . . . Appellant Vs. KALUMAL SNGWALA PVT. FAMILY DHARAMARTH TRUST . . . . Respondent ****CORAM: HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAJAY VASHISTH **** Present: MStanding Counsel f r. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sr. or the appellant. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) CM-9282-CII-2024 Exemption application is allowed Main case 1.Learned counsel for the appellant assaiTwhereby it has set aside the order passed by the PCIT whereby thePCIT had cancelled the registration of the respondent in Form 10ACand For 2.Learnedal aspects had been examined bythe PCIT, and the nature of formation under trust reflected that it wasnot for charitable purposes. ITA-76-2024 (O[&M)] Page 2 of 2 3.However, we find that the trust was created for the benefit of thefamily, and also for religious and charitable purposes. The ITAT hasgiven findings that the assessee trust was formed in the year 1942 andwas continuously doing the same activity. It was also registered underSection 12A of the Act, and in view thereof, the ITAT has reached tothe conclusion relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Courtin Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1992] 60Taxman 248 (SC) and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Smt. KasturbaiWalchand Trust, [1967] 631 ITR 656 (SC). It is also noticed that thebeneficiaries of the trust had also issued a certificate of renunciationwhich means that they had already renounced their benefit from thetrust. family, and also for religious and charitable purposes. The ITAT hasgiven findings that the assessee trust was formed in the year 1942 andwas continuously doing the same activity. It was also registered underSection 12A of the Act, and in view thereof, the ITAT has reached tothe conclusion relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Courtin Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1992] 60Taxman 248 (SC) and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Smt. KasturbaiWalchand Trust, [1967] 631 ITR 656 (SC). It is also noticed that thebeneficiaries of the trust had also issued a certificate of renunciationwhich means that they had already renounced their benefit from thetrust. 4.In view thereof, the factual findings have been arrived at by the ITATwhich do not require any substantial question of law to be examined bythis Court. No perversity in the order of the order of the ITAT hereinon recowhich do not require any substantial question of law to be examined bythis Court. No perversity in the order of the order of the ITAT hereinon reco 5.Appeal 6.All penposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 07, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No2. Whether reportable? Yes/No2. Whether reportable? Yes/No