IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2015 PRESENT HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.696/2009 Between: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE 2. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ..APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: SHREE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST 294/C, 17TH MAIN, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE 560098. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHANKAR, ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260- OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 29-05-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.1471/BNG/2008 PRAYING TO ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY ITAT BANGALORE IN 2 ITA NO.1471/BNG/2008 DATED 29-05-2009 AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against order passed by ITAT dated 29.05.2009 whereby order of Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) dated 31.10.2008 refusing to renew certificate under Section 80(G) of Income Tax Act has been set- aside and direction has been issued to renew approval under Section 80(G) of Act of appellant. 2. We have heard Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for appellant as well as Sri Shankar, learned counsel for respondent and perused records. 3. brief facts of case are that: 3 - respondent assessee is charitable trust duly registered and it applied for grant of exemption under Section 80(G) of Income Tax Act which was initially granted to assessee upto period 31.03.2008. renewal was denied by Director without assigning any reasons and by merely stating that certain clauses of trust deed, giving out objects, were not charitable in nature, in view of insertion of proviso to Section 15(2) which came into effect from 1.4.2008. It was also stated by Director that amendment was sought in trust deed which was rejected on 24.10.2008 and as such, renewal of approval was rejected. 4. tribunal has, in its order, considered objects of trust deed which Director had referred to and has come to conclusion that said objects were all of charitable nature and were not hit by proviso to Section 2(15) of Act. From plain reading of order of Director, it is clear that same has been passed without even 4 specifying as to which of objects, and how same, were not charitable in nature. It has also not been mentioned or clarified in order as to why on same objects trust had been granted exemption under Section 80(G) earlier, and it was being denied at this stage. 5. Proviso to Section 2(15) of Act was inserted with effect from 1.4.2009 and not from 1.4.2008 as has been mentioned by Director in his order. order of Director was totally devoid of reasons and thus, same was rightly set-aside by Tribunal and after considering all objects mentioned in trust deed as well as Section 2(15) of Act and also proviso to said Section, Tribunal has, in our view, rightly come to conclusion that denial of approval under Section 80(G) of Income Tax Act was not justified. 6. Sri Aravind has made attempt to justify order of Director stating that religious 5 activities would not be covered under definition of charitable purpose and according to learned counsel, certain objects relating to construction of prayer house etc. would come within ambit of religious purpose . 7. This is attempt made by learned counsel for appellant to justify order of Director, which justification has not been taken by Director himself. Even otherwise, on merits also, we are not satisfied with aforesaid objection raised by learned counsel for appellant as, in our opinion, construction of prayer hall or encouraging meditation yoga etc. would not be religious activities. We are, thus, not satisfied with submission of learned counsel for appellant, especially when such is not ground which has been taken by Director while denying approval to assessee. 6 8. In view of aforesaid, we are of opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination and as such, no interference is called for with order impugned in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Brn Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Bangalore/The Director of Income-tax Exemptions, Banglore v. Shree Public Charitable Trust