The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sri Gokarna Natheswara Trust

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The order of remission passed in ITA 1584/Bang/2002 dated 12.8.2004 is called in question by the Revenue.

The respondent assesses filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order of rejection to renew recognition granted u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, dated 1.10.2002. The Tribunal having noticed from the records that the Assessing Officer has failed to consider the relevant material produced before him by the assesses, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, remanded appropriate order after examining the issue in detail based on the material produced by the respondent-assessee. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed raising the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the Tribunal were correct in holding that the building of a prayer hall/Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Temple, which was open to the public at large amounted to A charitable nativity and not religious Activity, which did not violate the provisions of Section 80G(5)(ii) read with Section 80G(5B) of the Act.

Whether the finding recorded by the Commissioner that for the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02, which showed that the pooja expenses and maintenance of the temple exceeded the limit of 5% provided under Sub-section (5B) of Section 80G of the Act, which finding had not been upset by the Tribunal and still hold that the Assesses had not violated the provisions of Section 80G of the Act and was carrying on charitable activities.

Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to verify that the prayer hall was not being misused and that the activities carried on there in are not charitable in nature, when admittedly this was not the case of the Revenue nor that of the Assessee.

Considering the nature of substantial questions of law framed herein and considering the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, we are of the view that no substantial questions of law arise in this appeal since the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer only to find out whether the activities of the respondent-assessee-Trust falls under charitable purpose or not. Therefore, without answering the substantial questions of law, the appeal is dismissed.