Charitable trust registration cannot be denied for a minor loan-permission lapse when objects and activities remain genuine.

A charitable trust's registration and approval cannot be refused merely because it took a small temporary, interest-free and unsecured loan without prior permission under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, where its objects and activities are otherwise charitable and genuine. The ITAT Pune noted that the loan default did not affect the trust's charitable character under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act and that post-facto permission had also been sought. On that basis, refusal of registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G(5) was unsustainable, and both statutory benefits were directed to be granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the only objection was that a small temporary loan had been taken without prior permission under section 36A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950; (ii) Whether approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be refused on the same ground.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the only objection was that a small temporary loan had been taken without prior permission under section 36A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950.

Analysis: The objects and activities of the trust were found to be charitable in nature, falling within section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The refusal was based solely on the absence of prior permission for a loan of Rs. 1,15,800, but the material on record showed that the loan was interest-free, unsecured, supported by lender details, and the assessee had also sought post-facto permission. The genuineness of the charitable activities was not otherwise doubted.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the refusal was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be refused on the same ground.

Analysis: The denial of approval under section 80G(5) rested on the same loan-related objection. Section 80G(5) does not provide for refusal of approval merely because prior sanction under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act was not obtained for a temporary loan. Since the trust's charitable character and activities were accepted, the same reason could not justify rejection of the 80G application.

Conclusion: The refusal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not justified and the assessee was entitled to approval.

Final Conclusion: Both applications were directed to be granted, as the loan-related objection did not displace the charitable nature or genuineness of the assessee's activities and did not furnish a valid basis to deny statutory benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: A minor loan-related lapse under another statute, by itself, cannot defeat registration or approval under the Income-tax Act where the trust's objects are charitable, its activities are genuine, and the relevant income-tax provision does not authorize rejection on that ground.

---