Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Raipur
Confederation Of Pharma Dealers … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 27 October, 2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“RAIPUR” BENCH, RAIPUR
BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
& SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 219/RPR/2019)
Confederation of Pharma बनाम/ The Commissioner of
Dealers Association Vs. Income Tax
11. G. E. Road, Bajrang (Exemption)
Market, Raipur (C.G.) – Room No. 201, II Floor,
492001 Income Tax Office, II,
III & IV Floors, Metro
Walk Building, E-5,
Arera Colony, Bittan
Market, Bhopal –
462016 (M.P.)
था यी ले खा सं ./जी आ इ आर सं . / P AN/ GI R No . : A AA B C1 1 4 0 R
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, C.A.
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.-D.R.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of
11/08/2021
Hearing
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of
27/10/2021
Pronouncement
आदे श/O R D E R
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA – AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the
assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income
Tax(Exemption), Bhopal (‘CIT(E)’ in short), dated 27.09.2019
passed under s. 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the
Act).
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 2 –
2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has essentially
challenged the denial of registration under s.12AA of the Act on the
ground that activities undertaken by the assessee do not fall within
the definition of Section 2(15) of the Act.
3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a trade association meant for
promoting the business of pharma dealers and protecting the rights
and interest of its members who are engaged in pharma business.
The object clause as contained in the memorandum/bye laws of the
assessee society are noted hereunder:
“(1) To protect the rights and interests of drug dealer members, make
them aware of their duties arid make a complete and effective
organization for their all round development .
(2) To construct complex related to pharmaceutical business and
solve all the problems related to pharmaceutical business from
time to time.
(3) To promote and spread the spirit of brotherhood, fraternity,
patriotism, true self-respect and public service among drug
dealers members.
(4) To develop physical, mental, literary, s ocial, cultural status of
drug dealer members and organize seminars and works hops
related for pharmaceuticals business for increasing knowledge of
members .
(5) To get the laws detrimental to the interest of drug dealer
members amended, make the new laws that are necessary and
administer the implementation of these laws .
(6) To abstain from initi ating the movement nor sanctioning it till
the legal remedies for resolving each busi ness related problem
are exhausted, decision to be taken by Governing Body based on
majority if deemed necessary.
(7) To inculcate the spirit of working for public interest with
honesty, dedication and enthusiasm amongst the drug dealers
members .
(8) To publish regular newsletters and publications for spreading
information and ‘knowledge among drug dealers and make them
aware.
(9) To conduct elections in the presence of supervisor and present
the details of income and expenditure in the specified time
period.
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 3 –
(10) To achieve the afores aid objections only law abiding, truth and
non-violence means and principles shall be adopted and
followed.”
4. The assessee society claims to be engaged in the charitable
activities falling within the ambit of expression ‘the advancement of
any other object of general public utility’ as contained under s.
2(15) of the Act. Based on this premise, the assessee filed
application on 30.03.2019 electronically before the CIT(E) seeking
registration of the society under s. 12AA of the Act to enable it to
avail the benefits of Section 11 & Section 12 of the Act. After
raising queries on the application, the CIT(E) passed the impugned
order under s.12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act dated 27.09.2019 and
rejected the application of the assessee for registration under
s.12AA of the Act.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the assessee referred to the application
form, the object clause etc. and submitted that the CIT(E) has
misapplied the law in the facts of the case while denying the
registration. It was submitted that for denial of registration, the
CIT(E) has mainly observed that:
(a) The assessee is a mutual concern and the benefits of the
assessee societ y are limited to its members and thus it is a
mutual concern operating on the principles of mutualit y, as
such, the benefit is not meant for public at large.
(b) The assessee society has developed the market place after
purchasing the land in its name and the land so purchased
has been leased out to its members. The contribution from
the members is just like donation and the members have
derived the benefit from donation b y way of land/developed
plots leased out to the members.
(c) For denial of exemption, the CIT(E) has also observed that
the assessee society purchased the land out of the
contributions made b y the members, however, in
reciprocation of the contribution, the assessee gave the land
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 4 –
after development of market and development of plots to its
members, and, consequentl y, the land is not appearing in the
balance sheet.
6. In defense, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out
that as regards disclosure of land in the balance sheet, the Auditor
has given the observations in his audit report at page no.29 of the
paper book. The assessee society had purchased land out of
contribution paid by the members, right from the beginning, the
members made contributions essentially for allotment of developed
plots and thus the contribution was not without consideration or an
act of philanthropy. It was thus contended that the CIT(E)
misinterpreted the facts and did not appreciate the distinction
between the ‘contribution’ and ‘donation’ inasmuch as the members
never intended to give donation which would mean parting mone y
without consideration. It was further submitted that there is no
dispute over the fact that the assessee society had purchased the
land for developing the market place out of the contribution of the
members. Also there is no dispute over the fact that the assessee
purchased the land in its own name vide the registered purchased
deed. Further, there is no dispute over the fact that the assessee had
developed the market place for its members engaged in pharma
business. It is further an undisputed fact that developed plots were
allotted to its members in proportion to their contributions by wa y
of lease agreement for 99 years. Learned counsel also pointed out
that the land purchased has been duly recorded in the regular books
of accounts and all the expenses incurred on development of land
have also been accounted for in the books of accounts and disclosed
in the balance sheet. The statutory approvals and clearance were
obtained by the assessee society for development of the market
place. ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 5 –
6.1 In this factual backdrop, the learned counsel pointed out that
the expression ‘public’ employed in Section 2(15) of the Act
includes ‘section of public’ and thus there is no impediment for
registration merely on the ground that the trust is meant for the
advancement of pharma dealers. Reference in this regard was made
to the following decisions:
i. DIT vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 0280 (SC)
ii. Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
(1980) 121 I TR 1 (SC)
iii. Ahmedabad Rana Cas te Association vs. CI T (1971) 82 ITR 704
(SC)
iv. CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC)
v. CIT vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and
Industry (1981) 130 ITR 186 (SC)
vi. All India Rubber Industries Association vs. Addl.CIT & Ors .
(2018) 173 I TD 615 (Mumbai-Trib.)
vii. CEO Clubs India vs. DIT (Exemption) (2012) 32 CCH 0405
(Mumbai-Trib.)
viii. Agricultural Produce & Market Committee, Telhara & Ors . vs.
CIT (2005) 24 CCH (Mumbai) 0350 (Nagpur-Trib.)
ix. CIT vs. Chhattisgarh Urology Society (2018) 303 CTR 299 (CG)
6.2 The learned counsel next submitted that the assessee societ y
as per its main objects and other objects inter alia seeks to promote
patriotism, feelings of brotherhood, love towards nation and attitude
of public service on the principle of charity amongst its members
for their all round development and growth in every sphere of life
and in order to achieve its object. The assessee society organizes
seminar/ workshop to achieve such sacred purposes. The learned
counsel adverted our attention to one of such seminars conducted by
the Income Tax Officials for creating awareness amongst members
about their statutory duties under the provisions of Act in particular
and duties towards the nation in general and role of income tax in
nation building.
6.3 Other line of arguments raised on behalf of the assessee are
listed hereunder: ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 6 –
(a) The object of the assessee societ y includes its aim to inculcate the
spirit of working for public interest with honest y, dedication and
enthusiasm among drug dealer members. To achieve such object,
the assessee societ y organizes donation camp also. The assessee
societ y strives to provide h ygienic and health y infrastructure to
enable members to carry on trade in organized manner under well-
developed infrastructure.
(b) The activities of assessee societ y fall within the fourth limb of
Section 2(15) of the Act i.e. ‘the advancement of an y other object
of general public utilit y’ which carries a very wide connotation.
(c) The area of operation of the assessee societ y extends to the whol e
state of Chhattisgarh as can be seen from memorandum of
association of the assessee societ y.
(d) The assessee is essentiall y a trade association formed with the
object of protecting the rights and interest of members engaged in
the pharma business. The similarl y placed trade association with
like objects have been held to be eligible for registration under
s.12AA of the Act on the ground that their objects were found to
be falling within the expression ‘an y other object of general public
utilit y’ as emplo yed in Section 2(15) of the Act.
(e) A reference was made to the decision of Surat bench in ACIT vs.
Gujarat Hira Bourse dated 22.06.2021, wherein the Finance
Minister’s speech in Parliament was quoted with reference fourth
limb to the said Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The Finance
Minister in the said speech stated that the Chambers of Commerce
and similar organizations rendering services to their members
would not be affected b y the amendment and their activities would
continue to be regarded as ‘the advancement of an y other object of
general public utilit y’.
(f) CBDT Circular No.11 of 2008 dated 19 t h December, 2008
explained the amendment to Section 2(15) of the Act. As per the
circular, where the industries or trade associations claim both to
be charitable institutions as well as mutual organizations and their
activities are restricted to contributions from and participation of
onl y their members, this would not fall under the purview of
Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act owing to the principles of
mutualit y. However, if such organizations have dealings with non-
members, their claim to be chargeable organizations would now be
governed b y the additional conditions stipulated in the proviso to
Section 2(15) of the Act. The CBDT Circular has also observed
that whether the object of the assessee falls within ‘th e
advancement of an y other object of general public utilit y’ is a
question of fact and therefore, each case has to be decided on its
own facts and no generalization is possible. ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 7 –
(g) The mutual concern operating on the principles of mutualit y is not
debarred from claiming ex emption u/s.11 & 12 of the Act b y virtue
of registration u/s.12AA of the Act. The decision of the co-
ordinate bench in All India Rubber Industries Association vs.
Add.CIT & Ors. (2018) 173 ITD 615 (Mumbai-Tribunal) was
referred to and relied upon in this regard.
6.4 The learned counsel further contended that similarly placed
trade associations have been held to be eligible for registration
under s.12AA of the Act:
i. Addl.CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
(1980) 121 I TR 1 (SC)
ii. CIT vs. Gujarat Mariti me Boar d (2007) 295 I TR 561 (SC)
iii. CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC)
iv. CIT vs. Chhattisgarh Urology Society (2018) 303 CTR 299 (CG)
v. Shri Sarafa As sociation vs. CI T & Anr . (2007) 294 ITR 262 (MP)
vi. Chhattisgarh State Cr icket Sangh vs. DCI T (Exemption) (2019)
56 CCH 73 (Raipur- Tr ib.)
vii. All India Rubber Industries Association vs. Addl.CIT & Ors .
(2018) 173 I TD 615 (Mumbai-Trib.)
viii. Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India vs.
ACIT (Exemption) (2021) 209 TTJ (Mumbai) 160
6.5 Dealing with scope of enquiry, the learned counsel submitted
that at the time of considering the eligibility for registration under
s.12AA of the Act, the CIT(E) has to only examine the objects of
the assessee society and genuineness of the transaction. The scope
of enquiry does not go beyond this as provided under s.12AA(1)(ab)
of the Act. The judgment rendered by the jurisdictional High Court
in CIT vs. Chhattisgarh Urology Society (2018) 303 CTR 299 (CG)
was referred.
6.6 The learned counsel contended that the assessee society do not
belong to a particular community/family and any person engaged in
pharma business can become member of assessee society regardless
of his cast, creed or religion and without discrimination. ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 8 –
6.7 In summation, the learned counsel submitted that the trade
association has been formed for the advancement of public utility
with reference to the pharma dealers. In the wake of long line of
judicial precedents wherein the registration was granted to other
associations in similarly placed situations, it was urged that the
assessee should also be treated similarly and registration claimed
w.e.f. 01.04.2018 by an application dated 30.03.2019 in terms of
provisions of Section 12A(2) of the Act should be allowed.
7. The learned DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, relied
upon the order of the CIT(E).
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
perused the order passed by the CIT(E) under s.12AA of the Act.
The case laws referred to and relied upon as well as the paper book
containing material as referred, has been taken note of.
8.1 At the outset, we take note of the observations made by the
Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in CIT vs. Chhattisgarh Urology
Society (2018) 303 CTR 299 (CG). The essence of decision is that
the provisions contained under s.12A of the Act nowhere empowers
the CIT(E) to assess the objects vis-à-vis the books of accounts.
Even otherwise, it is not to be seen at the stage of application as to
whether the fulfillment of the charitable trust would eventually
benefit the members of the society. Some possible benefits to the
members would not effect the genuineness of the objects of the trust
per se. The order passed by the CIT(E) does not say in definite
terms that the objects of the society are not charitable in nature.
Merely because the trust consists of Urologist Doctors and the
charitable society may mutually benefit those members, the object
itself would not seize to be charitable in nature. Thus, as per
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 9 –
judgment of Jurisdictional High Court, the larger aim of objects is
required to be kept in mind.
8.2 On perusal of the order of the CIT(E), we are unable to find
the observations of the CIT(E) anywhere that the objects of the
assessee per se are not genuine. On perusal of the objects of the
assessee society as noted in paragraph no. 3, one cannot say that the
objects are not charitable in nature.
8.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in DIT vs. Bharat Diamond
Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 0280 has held that if the primary or
dominant purpose of institution is charitable and another object
which by itself may not be charitable but is merely ancillary or
incidental to the primary or dominant object, it would not prevent
the institution from validly being recognized as a charity. The test
to be applied is whether the object which is said to be non-
charitable is the main/ primary object of the trust/ institution or it is
ancillary or incidental to the main object which is charitable.
8.4 In a majority judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs.
Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1
(SC), it was observed that:
“The test which has , therefore, now to be applied is whether the
predominant object of the activity involved in carrying out the object of
general public utility is to subserve the charitable purpose or to earn
profit. Where profit making is the predominant object of the activity,
the purpose, though an object of general public utility would cease to
be a charitable purpose. But where the predominant object of the
activity is to carry out the charitable purpose and not to earn profit, it
would not lose its character of a charitable purpose merely because
some profit arises from the activity. The exclusionary clause does not
require that the activity must be carried on in such a manner that it
does not result in any profit. It would indeed be difficult for persons in
charge of a trust or institution to so car ry on the activity that the
expenditure balances the income and there is no resulting profit. That
would not only be difficult of practical realisation but would also
reflect unsound principle of management. We, therefore, agree with
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 10 –
Beg. J. When he sai d in Sole Trustee, Loka Sikhshana Trust’ s case
[ 1975] 101 ITR 234, 256 (SC) that:
“If the profits must necessarily feed a charitable purpose under the
terms of the trust, the mere fact that the activities of the trust yield
profit will not alter the charitable charact er of the trust. The test now
is, more clearly than in the past, the genuineness of the purpose tested
by the obligation created to spend the money exclusively or essentially
on charity.”
Thus essentially, where the purpose does not involve the carrying on
of any activity for profit and where the profit making is not the real
object, the trust would be entitled to avail the benefits emanating
from registration under the Act.
8.5 The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in Japanese Chamber Of
Commerce Industry vs. DIT (Exemptions) (2014) 160 TTJ
(Chennai) 356 reproduced the extracts from the decision of Delhi
Bench of Tribunal in Japan Chamber of Commerce & Industry In
India vs. Director of IT (Exemptions) (2008) 116 TTJ (Del) 61 :
(2008) 7 DTR (Del)(Trib) 277 which reads as under:-
” So far as object No. 6 is concerned, there can be no doubt that i t is a
charitable object since inviting intellectuals, industrialists, scholars,
tends to enlighten the faculties of the members which is to their
ultimate benefit and may help them in becoming more evolved and
better human beings. In fact, the Rajas than High Court in C1T vs.
Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society (2002) 174 CTR (Raj ) 504 :
(2002) 258 1TR 548 (Raj) has held that or ganizing such seminar s and
conferences to educate people in different fields of knowledge is a
charitable object of general public utility without any pr ofit motive.”
Carrying on of similar activities were thus approved for registration.
8.6 We find that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India vs.
ACIT (Exemption) (2021) 209 TTJ (Mumbai) 160 has held as under:-
“Since the asses see-trust has been set up with the object to addres s the
national issues related to real estate sector and better standards for its
all member associations, having 21 State chapters, 220 city chapters
and 20,000 members, it can safely be held to be for the benefit of a
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 11 –
particular section of the public and not for any specified individual.
Accordingly, the view taken by the lower authorities that as the
assessee trust was set up for providing facilities to a limited group of
people and not for the benefit of the general public at large, therefore,
it could not be held t o be a trust set up for advancement of any other
object of general public utility cannot be sustained and is herby
vacated.–Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association vs. CI T (1971) 82ITR 704
(SC) followed.
For the attainment of its objects, viz., to act as a group of
associations/federations functioning at nati onal and State level with an
object to address the national issues relating to real estate sector and
better standard for its all member associations, to encourage
fraternity, feelings of co-operation and mutual help among the members
of the confederation in respect of the subjects connected wi th the
common good of t rade, industry and profession of bui lding,
construction and development of funds, and to encourage adoption and
promotion of fair bus iness practices according to an ethical code of
fair business practices and to maintain efficiency, dignity and integrity
of the confederation, the assessee-trust had to carry out certain
activities, i.e., holding conventions, exhibit ions, meetings, etc. Insofar
carrying out of s uch activities are concerned, carrying on of the same
for the furtherance of the objects of the assessee-trust on a standalone
basis would not take the colour as that of a trade, commerce or
business. The holding of convention by t he assessee trust, and the
resultant receipts therein generated by it, i.e., participant fees,
sponsorship fees (from advertisers) etc., were clearly in the nature of
activities that were carried out by the assessee with the sole intent of
attaining the object for which the trust was established.”
8.7 We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat
Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 has held that “When an object
is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industr y
that object becomes an object of public utility. Similar view
expressed in CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR
722 (SC).
8.8 In the light of ratio of various decisions, some of which have
been quoted above, it is evident that the objects of the assessee trust
meant for benefit of pharma dealers would undoubtedly fall within
the fourth limb of Section 2(15) of the Act i.e. ‘the advancement of
any other object of general public utility’ which has been held to be
very wide in its connotation in several judicial pronouncements
noted above. The assessee society in the instant case is stated to be
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 12 –
engaged in promotion of trade and commerce related to pharma
business, protecting the rights and interests of its members, making
its members aware about their duties, conducting seminars and
workshops and organizing awareness camps and educating them
about health and safety, cleanliness and also creating awareness
about the legal provisions and duties and obligations under Income
Tax Act and other laws to help them becoming a law abiding
citizens. In this background, we are of the opinion that endeavors
of the assessee society tantamounts to advancement of public utilit y
and hence making such objects charitable in nature and susceptible
to s.2(15) of the Act. Significantly, we simultaneously notice from
the judicial precedents referred to in preceding paragraphs that it is
not necessary that object of general public utility should be
beneficial to the whole mankind. The object beneficial to a section
of the public is also an object of general public utility. Hence, the
case of the assessee gets covered in the fourth limb of Section 2(15)
of the Act i.e. ‘the advancement of any other object of general
public utility’. This being so, the assessee would be entitled to the
benefit meant for charitable trust as contemplated in the scheme of
the Act.
9. We also advert to the other objection of the CIT(E) that
assessee society has purchased the land and distributed the same to
its members by way of 99 years of lease. In similar facts situation,
the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in ACIT vs. Gujarat Hira Bourse
ITA No. 2917/Ahd/2014 dated 22.06.2021 observed as under:
“If the primary object of an entity like “Chamber of Commerce,
professional association, a bar council, et c” is the promotion of any
trade, industry, profession, etc. the fact that the business communi ty or
the profession as the case may be would be benefit therefrom, woul d not
take away the object from the realm of object of general public utility
and, therefore, they would be held established for a charitable purpose.
In view of the above factual and legal position, it is quite clear that the
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 13 –
object of the assessee is of general public utility and does not hit by
first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act.
To establish a bourse for promotion of exports of diamond, gems, pearl
and jewellery and to provide infrastructure and other facility for this
purpose, to develop and establish an inter national trading, cent er in
India for all those engaged as manufacturers, traders, exporters and
importers, brokers, commission agent of diamonds, gems, pearl s and
jewellery, to establis h for the benefit of members of the bourse,
effective liaison with other Agencies dealing in same trade, to
establish, construct and run gems and jewellery park to provide all
infrastructural facilities to its members and to host and organize gems
and jewellery trade fares, exhibitions etc. in India and abroad.
It was further highlighted that the assess ee has acquired a land on
lease from Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GI DC), a
government of Gujarat undertaking for the specific purpose of
development of Gems and Jewellery Park with the conditions that land
can be allotted to members only and no profit can be made of the
activities of bourse. It was also mentioned mat me plots woul d be
allotted to members r elated to gems and jewellery business only which
cannot be sublet/transferred without the approval of bourse. The
assessee explained the legal provisions of section 2(15) of the Act also
relying on the various decisions or Hon’bl e Supreme Court and other
High Courts and als o the Circular No. 11/2008, dated 19.12.2008
issued by CBDT. ”
Hence, merely leasing of developed plots to its members on the
basis of their respective contributions does not make the assessee
ineligible for registration as a charitable entity per se. We also do
not find merit in the contention of the CIT(E) that land purchased
by the society is not appearing in the balance sheet. As pointed out
on behalf of the assessee, the land purchased by the assessee societ y
has been duly disclosed in the Schedule ‘A’ ‘Land and Land
Development’ of the balance sheet and thus disclosed in a particular
manner.
10. While the assessee is a mutual concern and operating on the
principles of mutuality, this by itself would not place any embargo
for registration under s.12AA of the Act and to avail associated
benefits under s.11 & s.12 of the Act having regard to CBDT
Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 coupled with the decision of
ITA No. 219/RPR/2019 (Confed eration of
P h a r m a D e a l e r s As s o c i a t i o n v s . C I T ( E ) – 14 –
the co-ordinate bench in All India Rubber Industries Association vs.
Addl.CIT & Ors. (2018) 173 ITD 615 (Mumbai).
11. The objects of the assessee society when read in the light of
judicial precedents expounding the law in this regard, the
conclusion is inescapable that the objects of the assessee is for
charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act
and the assessee is entitled in law for registration under s.12AA of
the Act. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of the
CIT(E) dated 27.09.2019 and direct the CIT(E) / competent
authority to grant registration under s.12AA of the Act as sought b y
the assessee society.
12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 27/10/2021 b y placing the result on
the Notice Board as per Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax
(Appellate Tribunal) Rule, 1963.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PAWAN SINGH) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
True Copy
S. K. SINHA
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं*धत आयकर आय,
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आय,
ु त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. 0वभागीय 3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील य अ*धकरण, रायपुर /
DR, ITAT, RAIPUR
6. गाड7 फाइल / Guard file.
By order,
Sr. Private Secretary
ITAT, Raipur (on Tour)
Comments