Sai Krishna Associates vs Income Tax Officer

“1 . That the Ld. C IT Exempti on, Chandiga rh has e rred in fac ts and in law i n rej ecti ng renewal of regis trati on u/s 12AB read with s ection 12A(1 )(ac)(ii), whic h is arbit rary , illegal and unsustai nabl e.

2.

That t he Ld. C IT Exemption erred i n rej ec ting rene wal s ol ely o n the gr ound that c haritabl e expenses were incurred i n cas h wi thout any findi ng that s uch expenses are non-genui ne or not in accor dance with charitabl e o bjects .

3.

That t he Ld. CIT Exemption failed to appreciate tha t i n abs enc e of any allega tion of misuse/diversion or violati on, r enewal could not hav e been refus ed.

4.

That the L d. CIT Exemption faile d to appreciate the practical circumsta nce tha t temple and reli gio us activities in r ur al/semi-urban ar eas are depend ent upon ve ndors who deal only i n cas h.

5.

That t he Ld. CIT Exemption failed to appreciate tha t i nstit uti onal bank acco unts of societies are operated under dual/collect ive signatures and banks gene rally do not extend U Pl/Googl e Pay facility to such i nstit uti onal acco unts, the only banking mode i s cheq ue, whic h rural ve ndors do not accept, maki ng cash expenditure unavoidabl e and bona fi de. R ejecti on based sol ely on cash is t herefor e untenable.

6.

That mere mode of expenditure cannot form legal basis for refusi ng renewal , especially when ge nui neness and c haritable i nt ent are not doubt ed.

7.

That t he rejection order is cont rary to t he set tled law laid down by Honorable S upreme Court i n A nanda Social & Educational Trust and by Honorable P &H Hi gh Court in S urya Educational & C har itable Trust tha t at rene wal sta ge, only genui neness a nd c haritabl e objects are to be exami ned.

8.

It is therefore prayed that the impugne d order be quashed and renewal u/s 12AB be gra nted.”