sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 GE Energy Parts Inc vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), Room No. 312, C.R. Building New Delhi.
 Smt. Ritu Malik T-236, DB Gupta Road, Phara Ganj, New Delhi – 110055 vs. ITO, Ward – 62 (5) New Delhi
 Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd. B 9, LGF Green Park (Main) New Delhi 110 016 vs. ACIT Circle 9(1), Room No.194 C.R.building I.P.Estate New Delhi
 DCIT, Circle-2, Meerut. vs. Reeta Singhal, A-312, Prahlad Vatika, Khair Nagar, Meerut.
 Contata Solutions Pvt.Ltd. A-16/9, Vasant Vihar New Delhi 110 057 vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Room No.376A Central Revenue Building I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 002
 Late Sh. D. K. Jain Through Legal Hier Mrs. Usha Jain D-19, Nizamuddin East New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-32(1) New Delhi.
 Shri Neeraj Puri 74-C, Rajpur Road Dehradun Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Dehradun
 Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Hingo Kheri, Kandela D- Shamli vs. ITO, Ward – 1 (4) Shamli
 Satish Kumar, Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 49 Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3), Faridabad

Gareeb Guide (The Voluntary organization), Hyderabad Vs. The Director of Income-tax (Exemption), Hyderabad.
July, 01st 2014
                  HYDERABAD BENCH "B", HYDERABAD


                          ITA No. 1559/Hyd/2012
                        Assessment Year : 2011-12

Gareeb Guide (The Voluntary                The Director of Income-tax
organization), Hyderabad                   (Exemption), Hyderabad.

      (Appellant)                                (Respondent)
                     Assessee by           Shri D.V. Rao
                      Revenue by           Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram

                  Date of hearing          04-06-2014
          Date of pronouncement            18-06-2014

                               O RDE R


      This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated
27/09/2012 passed by the DIT(E), Hyderabad rejecting assessee's
application for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act.

2.    Briefly the facts are, assessee claiming itself to be a charitable
institution   applied for registration u/s 12AA of the Act in the
prescribed manner before the DIT(E)       on 31/03/2012. As it appears
from the order of DIT(E) after receiving application in Form No. 10A,
the DIT(E) issued a questionnaire vide letter dated 02/07/2012 calling
upon the assessee to furnish details on specific issues raised in the
questionnaire and further to produce their original documents of
registration and books of account for verification. After perusing the
information submitted by Assessee institution, the DIT(E) noted that
the objects of the Trust as mentioned in the Trust Deed are not
specific and cannot be accepted as charitable keeping in view the
                                                                    ITA No. 1559/Hyd/2012
                                              Gare eb Guid e (Th e Volunta r y Organsation ), Hyd.

meaning of `charitable purpose' defined in section 2(15) of the Act.
Further, the DIT(E) also noted that though during the proceeding,
assessee Institution stated that they have conducted campaigns on
Right to Information Act, Role of Judiciary, Role of Youth in Politics,
Public Interest Litigation on 25% free seats to poor students in private
colleges, campaign on women right, child right, etc., but, has not
furnished any evidence to indicate that it has in reality conducted
such campaigns. DIT(E), further, noted that the assessee institution
could not explain how such objects are covered under charitable
purpose as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. Further, the DIT(E)
observed that though a specific query vide Sl. No. 13 of the
questionnaire was raised to indicate certainty of the objects and
classification of the objects under different heads like medical relief,
education, relief of poor or any other object of general public utility,
however, assessee institution has not clarified on such issue by
leaving specific column blank. In view of the aforesaid, the DIT(E)
came    to     a    conclusion      that   the    assessee        cannot        be    allowed
registration       u/s   12A   of    the   Act.   Accordingly,         he     rejected       the
application filed by the assessee institution.

3.     We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record.
It is the contention of the learned AR that the objects of the assessee
will clearly come within the meaning of charitable purpose as defined
u/s 2(15) of the Act, as they are for general public utility. Therefore,
the conclusion drawn by the DIT(E) that the objects are not charitable
is totally arbitrary and without any basis. So far as the other
allegation of the DIT(E) that the assessee has not furnished any
evidence in respect of              claim of conducted campaigns on various
issues, the learned AR submitted that the DIT(E) without affording a
reasonable opportunity for furnishing necessary clarification/details
was not justified in alleging that the assessee has failed to furnish the
necessary information.
                                                             ITA No. 1559/Hyd/2012
                                       Gare eb Guid e (Th e Volunta r y Organsation ), Hyd.

4.    The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of

5.    As can be seen from the order of the DIT(E), the objects of the
assessee institution are as under:
      " 1. Promoting fundamental principles and humanitarian values,
      2. Develop in a better understanding internally,
      3. Influencing behavior in the community,
      4. The protection of life health and human dignity,
      5. Guide the people for their well wish,
      6. Fight for legal and economical equality, etc.

6.    Though the DIT(E) has held that the aforesaid objects are not
specific and cannot be accepted as charitable but, on what basis he
has come to such a conclusion has not at all been discussed by him.
Further, the allegation of the DIT(E) that the assessee has not
indicated with certainty the objects and classification of the objects
under different heads appears to be vague. We fail to understand
what the DIT(E) actually meant by that. Further, it is not clear whether
the DIT(E) has granted adequate opportunity to the assessee to
substantiate its claim in respect of the campaigns stated to have been
undertaken by it. Therefore, considering the submission of the
learned   AR   that   it    will     clarify     all    issues       by      removing
doubts/apprehensions of the DIT(E), if another opportunity is given,
we are inclined to remit this matter back to the file of DIT(E), who
shall decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the assessee institution. If at all the DIT(E) comes to
an opinion that objects of assessee do not come within the meaning
of charitable purpose as provided u/s 2(15), he must provide
adequate reasons for coming to such conclusion. Further, the DIT(E)
must seek clarification on all the issues, which according to him,
makes the institution ineligible for registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
Only after affording a fair opportunity of                hearing to assessee
                                                           ITA No. 1559/Hyd/2012
                                     Gare eb Guid e (Th e Volunta r y Organsation ), Hyd.

institution and considering all its submissions and materials on
record, the DIT(E) shall decide the issue in accordance with law.

7.    In the result, appeal of the assessee is considered to be
allowed for statistical purposes.
      Pronounced in the open court on 18/06/2014.

              Sd/-                                          Sd/-
      (B. RAMAKOTAIAH)                                 (SAKTIJIT DEY)
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 18 th June, 2014


Copy to:-

1) Shri D.V. Rao, Legal Advisor, Gareeb Guide (The Voluntary
   Organisation), 11/101, Old Malahar, Sahara States, Mansoorabad,
   L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad ­ 500 068.
2) DIT(E), Hyderabad.
3) ADIT(E), Hyderabad.
4) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Publishing Management System PMS News Management System Publishing Management System Development Online News Management System for media company custom Publishing management system development Survey management system Market Res

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions