AGRAWAL SABHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arises from a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra, dated 31 October 2013. The assessee had filed an application for registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Agra, in an order dated 15 July 2013 rejected the application on the ground that (i) the dominant object underlying the constitution of the trust was for the benefit of only the Agrawal community; and (ii) during the financial year 2011-12, the assessee earned income of Rs. 17.96 lacs and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 20.74 lacs in organizing 'Shri Maharaja Agrasen Jayanti' which indicates that the activity was specifically for the Agrawal community. The other expenses of the trust were found to be as follows:

(2.) Besides this, the Tribunal has noticed that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee did not contradict the finding of fact recorded by the CIT in his order that during the financial year 2011-12, as against an income of Rs. 17.96 lacs, the trust had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 20.74 lacs in organizing 'Shri Maharaja Agrasen Jayanti' which was meant only for the Agrawal community. The Tribunal also recorded the admission that no documentary evidence was furnished either before the CIT or before the Tribunal in respect of any activity of a general public utility.

(3.) But, it has been urged on behalf of the assessee by the learned counsel that during the course of the hearing before the Tribunal a paper book was filed. A copy of the index has been extracted in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. The balance sheet of the assessee as at 31 March 2012, to which the attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel, would indicate as the assets of the trust, a building valued at Rs. 2.53 crores. The income and expenditure account indicates that an amount of Rs. 80,900/- was realised towards booking of rooms. Even if this aspect is duly taken into account, it is evident that both the Tribunal and in the first instance the CIT held that the activity undertaken by the trust during the financial year in question related only to the Agrawal community and absolutely no documentary evidence was furnished to the effect that the dharamshala had been put to use of members other than those belonging to that particular community.