2014 (10) TMI 222 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal Upheld Registration for Inactive Charitable Trust

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Mani Guruswamy Seva Trust C/o Sri. TN. Seetharaman

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant registration under Section 12A to a charitable trust that had not yet commenced activities. The ... Grant of registration u/s 12A – Any activity not commenced even after one year of existence of Trust – Held that:- The Tribunal had rightly followed the decision in Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Versus Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust [2010 (11) TMI 853 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - CIT had rejected the registration of the Trust at the threshold - The reasons given by the Original Authority are not in consonance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act - when there is an ample power under the law to rectify the error by cancelling the registration of the trust if there is any breach of the objects of the Trust, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the order of the CIT – Decided against revenue. Issues:1. Granting registration under Section 12A to a charitable trust not yet commenced activities.2. Following the ratio laid down by the Karnataka High Court in a specific case.Analysis:1. The appellant, a charitable trust, applied for registration under Section 12 of the Income Tax Act, but the Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the application citing the trust's inactivity and lack of financial resources to fulfill its stated objectives. The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal, relying on a decision of the Karnataka High Court. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that registration should not be granted to a trust without any activities. The High Court noted that the authority has the power to monitor trust activities and cancel registration if necessary. The Court found the Commissioner's reasons for rejection not aligned with the law, as there is provision to rectify errors by canceling registration in case of non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order was upheld.2. The second issue raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in following the ratio set by the Karnataka High Court in a specific case. The High Court, after considering its own previous decision, held that the authority has the power to ensure trust activities align with its objectives. By dismissing the Tax Case (Appeal) and upholding the Tribunal's decision, the High Court affirmed that the authority can cancel registration if a trust fails to operate in accordance with its stated purposes. The judgment emphasized the importance of monitoring charitable trusts to safeguard their integrity and purpose.This judgment underscores the significance of ensuring that charitable trusts operate in line with their objectives, even if they have not yet commenced activities. It highlights the authority's power to monitor trust operations and cancel registration if necessary, emphasizing compliance with the law to maintain the integrity of charitable activities.