appeal of assessee is directed against order dt. 22nd June, 2000 of CIT, Chandigarh by virtue of which application for registration of assessee-trust under s. 12A and exemption under s. 80G of IT Act, 1961 has been rejected. Following revised grounds of appeal were filed on 23rd Dec., 2004: "1. That orders of CIT are contrary to law and facts of appellant s case as far as it relates to denial of registration of trust under s. 12A of IT Act, 1961. That orders of CIT are contrary to law and facts of appellant s case as far as it relates to rejecting application of assessee for condoning delay for late filing of application for registration of trust under s. 12A." Subsequently, assessee has filed application for admission of additional ground of appeal which reads as under: "That orders of learned CIT, Chandigarh are contrary to law and facts of appellant s case, as far as it relates to rejecting application of trust for exemption under s. 80G." We have heard parties and perused records. learned counsel for assessee contended before us that CIT has passed consolidated order in regard to registration of trust under s. 12A and exemption under s. 80G of IT Act, 1961. In appeal filed, assessee inadvertently omitted to raise ground relating to rejection of exemption under s. 80G. It was contended that additional ground raised by assessee is purely legal in nature and does not require investigation of facts. Since omission to raise ground was inadvertent, it was contended that additional ground of appeal may be entertained. learned Departmental Representative on other hand, opposed request of assessee. It was contended that since assessee had intentionally omitted to contest order of CIT relating to exemption under s. 80G, additional ground of appeal may not be entertained, especially when assessee has not given any valid reasons for its omission. On merits, learned counsel for assessee contended that Shri J.S. Tanwar had created trust vide trust deed dt. 6th June, 1994 with sole object of constructing and managing temples, shrines, places of worship and spiritual discourses. Assessee had applied to U.T. Administration for allotment of land for construction of temple in prescribed form on 20th June, 1994 along with demand draft of Rs. 25,000. However, request for allotment of land was declined by Administration vide their letter dt. 29th Nov., 1994. management of trust subsequently kept on pursuing Administration for allotment of land. assessee was informed vide letter dt. 5th Sept., 1997 that as per guidelines formulated by Chandigarh Administration, trust should be in existence for five years before any application for allotment of land could be considered. That after completing five years trust approached Chandigarh Administration vide letter dt. 16th Aug., 1999 for allotment of land to trust but so far land has not been allotted to assessee. At same time, application of assessee has not been rejected. assessee had applied for registration of trust on 21st Dec., 1999. It also filed returns for asst. yrs. 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 on same date. CIT vide order dt. 22nd June, 2000 has rejected application of assessee for registration of trust under s. 12A and as also exemption under s. 80G of Act. CIT(A) has also not condoned delay in filing of application for registration under s. 12A. It was further contended that assessee had received donations for corpus of trust which had been kept in fixed deposits and interest therein is also accumulated to be utilized for objects of trust. It was contended that CIT was not justified in refusing to condone delay in furnishing application for registration. He was also not justified in refusing to grant registration to trust. It was further contended that CIT has ignored facts and circumstances of case insofar as assessee had been carrying on activities for furtherance of objects of trust from time to time. Reliance was placed on decisions of Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in ITA No. 158/Chd/2003 and ITA No. 110/Chd/2004 in support of contention that delay in furnishing of application is requested to be condoned. learned counsel further contended that assessee had not spent funds received by way of donations as same were for purposes of corpus of trust. Referring to finding of CIT about wrong furnishing of Form No. 15H, it was contended that said form was filed under bona fide belief that income of assessee was not liable to tax. learned counsel also pointed out to evidence placed in paper book to support claim of assessee that activities were carried out by assessee-trust from time to time for furtherance of objects of trust. learned counsel also pointed out that before creation of trust, assessee had constructed temple in s. 45 which was demolished and matter was in Court of law. It was further contended that it was not open to CIT to enquire into application of income of assessee-trust for purpose of registration. Therefore, ground taken by CIT for rejection of application that assessee did not apply income for objects of trust is not justified. In support of said contention, reliance was placed on following decisions: (i) St. Don Bosco Educational Society vs. CIT (2004) 84 TTJ (Luck) 805: (2004) 90 ITD 477 (Luck); (ii) Ashutosh Dawar Trust vs. Director of IT, (Exemption) (2002) 77 TTJ (Del) 976: (2002) 82 ITD 593 (Del); (iii) Auro Food Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 548 (Mad); and (iv) Malli Ram Charitable Trust vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 118 (Asr)(AT). It was accordingly pleaded that assessee-trust may be granted registration from date of its creation and in alternative from 1st day of financial year in which application was filed. It was further pleaded that exemption under s. 80G may also be granted. learned Departmental Representative on other hand, contended that w.e.f. 1st April, 1997, s. 12A has been amended so as to empower Chief CIT or CIT to make inquiries as may be deemed necessary in order to verify genuineness of activities of trust or institution. Therefore, genuineness of activities of trust or institution. Therefore, decisions that no inquiry is required to be made for purposes of grant of registration under s. 12A are no longer applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. It was pointed out that in this case it is necessary to consider background of proceedings for purpose of determination of issue relating to registration of trust. It was pointed out that huge deposits in bank account had been found in name of family members of Shri J.S. Tanwar. application had been filed before Settlement Commission in case of Shri J.S. Tanwar proprietor M/s Aman Securities & Detectives, Chandigarh and some income offered for taxation. Inviting our attention to observations of Settlement Commission in para 14 of its order p. 8 of supplementary paper book, it was pointed out that Settlement Commission was conscious of fact that credits in bank account in name of Aman Shiv Mandir Trust had been taxed in status of AOP at maximum marginal rate and that income relating to FDRs and interest thereon was not taxed in hands of Shri J.S. Tanwar on ground that it would amount to double taxation. learned Departmental Representative also objected to several papers in paper book which have been introduced as additional evidence without any application for admission of same much less giving adequate reasons for not furnishing such evidence before Revenue authorities. It was further pointed out that assessee had furnished wrong declaration in Form No. 15H and ultimately Shri J.S. Tanwar had filed petition before Settlement Commission. It was further contended that assessee had applied for registration of trust only after investigation and detection of FDRs by IT Department. It was further contended that assessee had not carried on any activity in furtherance of objects of trust and had also not established source of receipts/donations claimed to have been received for corpus of trust. Responding to decisions cited on behalf of assessee-trust about condonation of delay and grant of registration in some other cases, it was pointed out that in such cases no speaking order had been passed by CIT and no investigation had been conducted before rejection of applications. On other hand, in this case, CIT has given detailed reasons on basis of investigation carried out by Department and, therefore, said decisions are inapplicable to facts of this case. Moreover, law has been amended to enable CIT to make inquiries before registration. Reliance was placed on decision of Kerala High Court in case of Self Employers Service Society vs. CIT (2000) 164 CTR (Ker) 449: (2001) 247 ITR 18 (Ker), in support of contention that CIT is entitled to enquire about genuineness of objects of trust before grant of registration. Reliance was also placed on decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. T.N.K. & V. Educational Trust (1998) 145 CTR (Mad) 537: (1998) 233 ITR 182 (Mad). learned Departmental Representative further contended that even on merits, assessee is not entitled to exemption under s. 80G as no genuine trust has been found to exist. In counter reply, learned counsel for assessee contended that assessee having settled dispute relating to FDRs with Settlement Commission, genuineness of funds cannot be gone into. It was also contended that decision of Kerala High Court in case of Self Employers Service Society (supra) is in fact in favour of assessee insofar as totality of facts and circumstances of case are to be taken into consideration and in present case no funds have been misappropriated. It was accordingly pleaded that appeal of assessee may be allowed. We have given our careful consideration to rival contentions. We shall first deal with refusal of registration under s. 12A. Before we proceed to deal with facts of this case, we consider it necessary to point out that upto 31st March, 1997, there was no specific provision for processing of application for registration made under s. 12A. Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) inserted s. 12AA w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 which lays down procedure to be followed for grant or refusal of registration. said section reads as under: "12AA. (1) CIT, on receipt of application for registration of trust or institution made under cl. (a) of s. 12A, shall (a) call for such documents or information from trust or institution as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about genuineness of activities of trust or institution and may also make such inquiries as he may deem necessary in this behalf; and (b) after satisfying himself about objects of trust or institution and genuineness of its activities, he (i) shall pass order in writing registering trust or institution; (ii) shall, if he is not so satisfied, pass order in writing refusing to register trust or institution; and copy of such order shall be sent to applicant: Provided that no order under sub-cl. (ii) shall be passed unless applicant has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. (1A) All applications, pending before Chief CIT on which no order has been passed under cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) before 1st day of June, 1999, shall stand transferred on that day to CIT and CIT may proceed with such applications under that sub-section from stage at which they were on that day. (2) Every order granting or refusing registration under cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) shall be passed before expiry of six months from end of month in which application was received under cl. (a) of s. 12A. (3) Where trust or institution has been granted registration under cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) and subsequently CIT is satisfied that activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with objects of trust or institution, as case may be, he shall pass order in writing cancelling registration of such trust or institution: Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be passed unless such trust or institution has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard." perusal of s. 12AA quoted above does not leave any room for doubt that w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 CIT has been specifically empowered to call for documents or information to satisfy himself about genuineness of activities of trust/institution and that before grant of registration CIT has to be satisfied about objects of trust/institution and genuineness of its activities. Therefore, cited decisions prior to 1st April, 1997 are inapplicable w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. Moreover, if there is any decision to contrary to provisions of Act, there is no doubt that such decisions would not be applicable in preference to statutory provisions of Act if such provisions have not been considered in arriving at such decision. On basis of amended law w.e.f. 1st April, 1997, it is evident that CIT is empowered to make inquiry about genuineness of trust as well as activities carried on for furtherance of objects of trust. Therefore, objection on behalf of assessee that such inquiries were not called for is not well-founded. next question that arises for our consideration is as to whether on facts and in circumstances of this case, CIT was justified in refusing to grant registration to trust. CIT has given detailed reasons for his denial of registration. factors that have been highlighted by CIT in refusing to register trust are summarized as under: (i) That assessee has filed application for registration late by 4 years and 6 months. (ii) That assessee has not furnished any evidence to establish that any activity for furtherance of objects of trust had been carried out from date of creation of trust. (iii) That no expenditure of whatsoever nature has been spent by trust for objects of trust right from its creation to decision of CIT. (iv) That assessee had deposited Rs. 76,40,788 and earned huge interest on these deposits; assessee-trust had filed Form No. 15H with bank certifying that no tax was payable by it to avoid deduction of tax at source and, therefore, assessee had given false declaration. (v) That there was no proof that amount collected by assessee was from voluntary contributions that too for corpus of trust. (vi) That assessee, it appears, had made application for registration as charitable institution only when ITO had started inquiries about registration of trust under s. 12A after discovering declaration filed in Form No. 15H. Form No. 15H. (vii) That IT Department has detected huge deposits in name of main trustee and latter had gone to Settlement Commission. (viii) That 75 per cent of income of trust was not utilized for charitable purposes in India. (ix) That assessee had taxable income and same had not been utilized for any charitable purposes. (x) That no ingredients are made out for assessee to be charitable trust. In our considered view, delay in filing of application for registration by itself may not be ground for refusal of registration to trust. So, however, when all other aspects in this case are taken into consideration, delay in filing of application is also relevant for considering genuineness of claim of assessee that trust had been created for public charitable purposes. It is not disputed before us that IT Department had detected huge deposits in bank accounts of Tanwar family members. deposits were also found in name of assessee-trust. declaration in Form No. 15H also was found to have been furnished to bank that to effect that its income was not liable to tax. It is important to note that neither at time of furnishing of declaration in Form No. 15H nor at time of detection of huge bank deposits, assessee had filed application for registration of trust. Admittedly, trust deed had been executed sometime in 1994. So, however, not single penny has been spent for furtherance of objects of trust upto date of order by CIT. attempt was made to establish that some of activities had been carried on by trust. So, however, firstly no credible evidence had been led to establish that such activities had been carried on by assessee and secondly, it is not disputed that not single penny has been spent by trust for carrying on even such activities as claimed. No evidence has been furnished before authorities about receipt of huge donations much less evidence to establish that such donations were for corpus of trust. As per trust deed, sum of Rs. 51,000 was transferred to trustees for furtherance of objects of trust. So, however, bank deposits in name of trust have accumulated to more than Rs. 75 lakhs and huge income is earned on such deposits. trust has been created in June, 1994 and even after expiry of more than decade, assessee has neither purchased land for construction of temple nor has spent any amount for objects of trust. contention that U.T. Administration failed to allot land and, therefore, money could not be spent does not appeal to commonsense insofar as there was no restriction on assessee to acquire land, especially when it had accumulated huge amount of money . trust with accumulation of nearly crore of rupees not spending penny during period of ten years, in our considered view, is prominent factor that amply demonstrates that trust is not genuine trust. It is also noteworthy from assessment orders placed on record by learned Departmental Representative as well as by assessee s representative that assessments have already been made in name of trust assessing deposits in status of AOP. AO while framing assessment for asst. yr. 1995-96 has even observed that assessee has in fact created private family trust. In assessment proceedings of assessee-trust AO has made detailed inquiry from some of trustees and recorded finding that they had denied of any knowledge of trust. Though this finding of AO was not available to CIT yet it supports view taken by him about genuineness of trust. It would be relevant to refer to decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in case of Self Employers Service Society (supra). In this case their Lordships held as under: "Held, that reference to bye-laws of society would show that though several charitable activities were included in objects of society, society was not able to do any of charitable activities during first year of its functioning. proposal to start technical educational institution itself was taken only on 14th June, 1999, after rejection of application by CIT. Since society had not done any charitable work and activities which it had carried on were only for purpose of generating income for its members, rejection of application was justified. relief granted by single rejection of application was justified. relief granted by single Judge was appropriate." In present case also, assessee even after expiry of more than decade has not been able to spend even penny for furtherance of objects of trust. above decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court thus supports view taken by CIT that assessee is not entitled to registration under s. 12A of IT Act, 1961. Taking totality of facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, we are of considered view that CIT was justified in denying benefit of registration to assessee-trust as same has not been established to have been genuinely created for meeting objects of charitable institution. Since assessee has not been found entitled to registration under s. 12A as public charitable trust, denial of exemption under s. 80G is consequential. We accordingly find no merit in appeal of assessee. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** AMAN SHIV MANDIR TRUST v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX