NARAYANA GURU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSESSEE has filed this appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B', Bangalore dated 29.05.2009 in ITA No. 4/Bang/2009 whereunder appeal filed by the assessee questioning the order of Commissioner for Income Tax, Mangalore who had rejected the assessee's application filed under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') came to be affirmed.

(2.) APPELLANT (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It was granted registration under Section 12A and also approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act with effect from 17.02.2004 to 31.03.2005. Thereafter, continuation of the approval granted under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act was granted with effect from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008. On an application made for continuance of approval on 06.03.2008, it was proposed to be rejected by the respondent and as such, notice came to be issued which was duly replied by the assessee. Thereafter, application for continuance of recognition came to be rejected by the respondent. Assessee unsuccessfully challenged the same before Tribunal and as such, present appeal has been presented to this Court.

(3.) IT is the contention of Smt Jineetha Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant - assessee that respondent was not justified in rejecting the application for continuance of recognition granted to appellant under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act without examining as to whether aims and objects of the assessee - society had been fulfilled and charitable object with which it was formed has been achieved or not and as such, she contends that order of the Commissioner is erroneous. She would also contend that Commissioner as well as Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that assessee - Trust had not carried on any activity which was hit by proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act and reply given to the respondent indicated that donations which had been received by the assessee had been utilised for the purpose envisaged under the objects of the Trust and its fulfillment. Non -consideration of said vital evidence available on record by the respondent has resulted in miscarriage in the administration of justice. Hence, she prays for answering the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal memorandum in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.