1. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR
BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
ITA Nos. 324 & 325/Jodh/2014
Kanoi Charitable Trust,
H.No. 3381, Pareek Bas,
Shivkaran Lal Kanoi Street,
Ladnun, Nagaur (Rajasthan).
Vs.
CIT-II, Jodhpur.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Suresh Ojha.
Department By : Shri O.P. Meena – CIT D.R.
Date of hearing : 26/08/2014.
Date of pronouncement : 27/08/2014.
O R D E R
PER N.K. SAINI, A.M
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against separate
orders each dated 24/03/2014 of CIT-II, Jodhpur. Since both the appeals
relate to the same assessee and are correlated, so these are being
disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2. 2
2 First we will deal with I.T.A.No. 324/Jodh/2014. The following
grounds have been raised in this appeal:
“1. That the order passed by the CIT is illegal and against the law.
2. That the CIT-II should have granted registration u/s. 12A of the IT Act
because the assessee fulfill all the conditions as laid down in the
Income Tax Act.
3. That the CIT-II should have accepted that the object of the trust is
having character of charitable.
4. That the interpretation of commercial education is not correct as has
been observed by the CIT-II.”
3. From the above grounds, it is clear that only grievance of the
assessee relates to the rejection of application for registration u/s. 12A
of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short).
4. Facts relating to this case, in brief, are that the assessee filed an
application on 23/10/2014 in Form-10 for registration u/s. 12A(a) of the
Act. The Ld. CIT asked the assessee to furnish the below mentioned
information/details/documents:-
(i) Notes on charitable activities carried out since inception of the trust.
(ii) Produce the books of accounts /documents maintained by the trust.
(iii) Complete details of donation received by the trust during last 3 years.
5 The assessee furnished the requisite details. The Ld. CIT noticed
that the object as per para 4(a) of the trust deed was as under:-

3. 3
“(a) To open, maintain and start schools, colleges, technical and
commercial educational institutions for the advancement of education and
open boardinghouses, hostels, reading rooms, libraries and research
laboratories….”
6. The assessee submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) as under:-
“That the trust is a public charitable trust and all the activities of the trust
will be in accordance to the section 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961.
No, business or profit taking activities will be started by the trust. The
trust may open academic schools and colleges for study of commerce and
other subjects etc. and thereby someone find employment. The word used
‘commercial’ does not mean any business or profit making activities.”
7. The Ld. CIT, however, observed that the assessee had not given
anything specific in support of the above said point 4(a) of the object. In
his opinion, the meaning of word ‘commercial’ was making or intended to
make a profit. He, therefore, refused to register the assessee trust u/s.
12A(a) of the Act. Now the assessee is in appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the main object of
the assessee trust is to open academic schools and colleges, technical and
commercial educational institutions for the advancement of education
and this object is charitable in nature. He further submitted that the
use of word ‘commercial education’ does not mean that the assessee
intended to make profit because the word ‘commercial’ was relating to
the ‘commercial education’ and not ‘commercial activity’. Therefore,
the assessee was entitled for the registration u/s. 12A of the Act.

4. 4
9. In his rival submissions, learned CIT D.R. supported the impugned
order.
10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and
carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present
case, it appears that the Ld. CIT refused the registration to the assessee
trust only on this basis that the word commercial education denotes that
the activities of the assessee were intended to make a profit, but he did
not bring any material on record to substantiate that the activities were
not charitable in nature. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that
the main object of the assessee was advancement of education, which is
charitable in nature. Therefore, merely by using the word ‘commercial
educational institution’ it cannot be said that the assessee trust is not a
public charitable trust because the commercial educational institute does
not mean that the said institute was making the profit and not imparting
the commercial education i.e. the education in the field of commerce.
We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts, set aside the
impugned order and direct the Ld. CIT to grant the registration u/s. 12A
of the Act to the assessee.

5. 5
11. In I.T.A.No. 325/Jodh/2014, the only grievance of the assessee
relates to the refusal for grant of approval u/s. 80G of the Act.
12. Facts relating to this case, in brief, are that the Ld. CIT did not
grant approval to the assessee u/s. 80G of the Act for the reason that the
application for granting registration u/s. 12A of the Act was rejected.
13 In the former part of this order, we have directed the Ld. CIT to
grant the registration u/s. 12A(a) of the Act, therefore, this issue relating
to the granting of approval u/s. 80G is remanded back to the file of the
Ld. CIT to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due
and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
15 In the result appeal in I.T.A.No. 324/Jodh/2014 is allowed while the
appeal in I.T.A.No. 325/Jodh/2014 is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 27th
August, 2014).
Sd/- sd/-
(HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 27th
August, 2014.
vr/-
Copy to:

6. 6
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The ld.CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The D.R
Sr. Private Secretary,
ITAT, Jodhpur.