Kewalam Charitable Trust vs CIT (Exemptions)

ORDER

A. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption) New Delhi {in short Ld. CIT(E)} erred:

1.

in rejecting/ not allowing Application of the Appellant filed in form 10AB u/s 12A for registration/renewal of Registration of the Appellant u/s 12A(l)(ac)(iii); and

2.

in cancelling provisional registration already granted to the Appellant under the said Section vide order dated 03.08.2022.

3.

in not allowing/not renewing certificate granted to the Appellant u/s 80G(5) vide order dated 03.08.2022.

4.

in making various wrong, erroneous, uncalled for and avoidable observations in the impugned order.

5.

in not considering and ignoring various submissions made by the Appellant during these proceedings.

6.

in issuing show cause notices to the Appellant repeatedly without giving details/valid reasons thereof and without appreciating well settled principles of law that giving show cause is not an empty formality and is not valid in law unless full facts and provisions of law is communicated to noticee to enable him to make effective representation, rebuttal or needful compliance of the same.

7.

in holding that trust deed of the Appellant does not have any clause specifying manner of dissolution of the Trust and application or disposal of its assets upon such dissolution without:

(1)

disclosing mandatory provision in the Act or any other law which so provide and in the absence of which registration cannot be granted/renewed more so when registration was granted to Appellant vide order dated 03.08.2022 based on same Trust Deed with same provisions as now.

(2)

Considering or rebutting submissions of the Appellant that there is no such requirement in any law more so when Appellant is an irrevocable perpetual Trust registered under and governed by the provisions of Indian Trust Act which does not contain any such provision.

(3)

Giving a specific opportunity of hearing with Ld. CIT(E) and not by his office so as to enable Appellant either to explain it point of view or to take requisite remedial action if required to prevent avoidable litigation and was so specifically requested.

8.

in holding, unsupported by any provision of law which requires, that in absence of a dissolution clause , it cannot be ensured that assets of trust shall continue to be utilized for charitable purposes upon its winding up failing to appreciate that Appellant trust was a perpetual and irrevocable Trust and hence there is no provision in law for its winding up.

9.

in observing that dissolution clause in the Trust Deed is a mandatory requirement as per CBDT guidelines for registration in the Act u/s 12A failing to appreciate that CBDT has no power in law to make any such guideline and in case there is any such guideline, it cannot be treated as law unless the Act is amended by parliament.

10.

in not appreciating that Doctrine of Cy-Pres and Section 92 of CPC cannot be applied in case of the Appellant in the present context as so stated by Ld. CIT(E) more so when Appellant is an irrevocable perpetual Trust which by itself ensures that property once dedicated to charity remains charitable in perpetuity as so held by numerous judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court but none of them including the one relied by Ld. CIT(E) make it a precondition for registration u/s 12A.

11.

in not appreciating that ratio of judgment relied in impugned order in case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State Of A.P & Ors. (AIR. 2006 SC 1350) are altogether on different fact and are not applicable to the facts of Appellant case.

B. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(E) grossly erred in drawing erroneous conclusions of his own imagination and not as so held in the judgments relied by him and thereby most erroneously holding, out of his own imaginative presumption, unsupported by judgments relied by he himself and hence these observations and erroneous conclusions of Ld. CIT(E) as quoted below are void ab-initio and non-est and impugned order passed on the basis thereof deserves to be set aside directing him to grant registration

1.

That lack of such clause, (as is stated in impugned order), is in violation of the laws and doctrines; or

2.

That since one has to be satisfied that trust has complied to such requirements of any other law for time being in force as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, it is desirable (not mandatory) that such clause exists in the deed and it is also an indicator of the charitable intent and genuineness of its purpose, or

3.

That as per procedure for registration from 01.04.2021, various sub clauses u/s.l2A(l)(ac) are introduced describing different scenarios under which an institution can apply to seek registration u/s,12A, as per procedure described in section 12AB of the Act; or

C. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(E) grossly erred in holding that:

1.

assessee has failed to file details/explanation required by notices referred above, in support of genuineness of the activities, charitable objects, commencement of activities; and

2.

has also failed to comply basic conditions prescribed for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act

D. Appellant craves lave to amend, alter, vary and/ or withdraw any grounds of appeal at any time hereafter.