ITA-80-2015 (PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II Vs SATNA SEVA BHARTI) 28-10-2015 Shri S. Lal, learned counsel for appellant. Having heard learned counsel for parties, we find that in this appeal filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act by Revenue, following question of law has been indicated for consideration :- Whether on facts and circumstance of case, order of Ld. Tribunal is perverse on facts in directing Commission of Income Tax to grant approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) overlooking grounds of rejection as evidenced in order of Commissioner of Income Tax dated 28.06.2013 and relying on additional evidence submitted before Tribunal by assessee without subjecting it to verification by Commissioner? assessee claim to be trust and sought exemption and approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of Income Tax Act. competent authority examined matter and in Para 2 of its order found that object of trust as is indicated in Para 1 reproduced and thereafter found that committee has shown expenses under three headings namely Matrachaya Expenses , Project Expenses and Seva Bharti Expenses. However, after going though various vouchers and documents of expenditure, Commissioner found that except for filing some vouchers pertaining to purchase of food items which was said to be used for orphans in Matrachaya, no vouchers or documents are adduced to say as to what are expenses incurred under heading Project Expenses and Seva Bharti Expenses and as to how these expenses are relating to utility and work of trust. Finding that expenses for furthering object of trust is not established, application under Section 80G(5)(vi) was rejected by holding that requirement of said statute has not been fulfilled. However, when matter was re- examined by appellate Tribunal, at instance of assessee, Tribunal did not deal with finding of fact recorded by Commissioner as indicated hereinabove. Instead, in very causal manner held that they have gone though record and found that trust is entitled for exemption and granted exemption. In our considered view, question of law relating to perversity of finding clearly established. In present case while dealing with matter Commissioner has given cogent reason to say that expenditure incurred for purpose of trust is not established while interfering with this finding, learned Tribunal has not given any reason as to why this finding is incorrect and how it can be said to be contrary to evidence available on record. Tribunal should have considered evidence available on record and then held as to why finding of Commissioner is unsustainable, as to what is material available to show that requirement of Section 80G(5)(vi) are fulfilled, therefore, exemption can be granted. Tribunal has not discharged these responsibilities properly, instead, in very casual manner, appeal has been decided and approval granted under Section 80G(5)(vi). In our view, Tribunal has recorded perverse finding and question of law formulated to be answered in favour of revenue. Accordingly, answering question in favour of revenue, we allow appeal, quash order and remand matter back to appellant Tribunal for re- consideration and deciding matter afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) (KESHAV KUMAR TRIVEDI) JUDGE JUDGE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II v. SATNA SEVA BHARTI