IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 505 OF 2015 CIT (Exemptions) Appellant Versus Cancer Aid & Research Foundation Respondent .. Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr. Arun P Nagarjun and Mr. Pradip . Badgude i/b Mrs. Padma Divakar, for Appellant. Mr. Nilesh Joshi i/b Mr. A. K. Jasani, for Respondent. .. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 25th JULY, 2017 P. C. : 1. DIT (Exemptions) has cancelled registration of respondent Trust. Tribunal has allowed Appeal filed by assessee. Aggrieved thereby, present Appeal. 2. Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for appellant strenuously contends that, on three grounds DIT (Exemptions) has cancelled registration of Trust. land was sold by trust owned by it for commercial purpose. Even on website trust had notified land for sale as property. According to 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2017 10:04:11 ::: Shridhar Sutar 2 21-itxa-505.15.doc learned Counsel, said act is not in consonance with object of trust. Tribunal has lost sight of said fact. learned Counsel further submits that, conditions of Section 12AA(3) is satisfied. According to learned Counsel, even luxury car of BMW make was purchased by trust in name of trustee, itself shows that trust was defeating its object. There was no reason to purchase such luxury car and more so in name of Trustee. According to learned Counsel, Tribunal has also failed to consider that payment of scholarship of students is routed through PAAK foundation, wherein, trustees of said trust of respondent are common. All these aspects are sufficient to invoke Section 12AA for cancellation of registration and DIT (E) had properly acted as per said provision. 3. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent supports order and submits that disallowance made by Assessing Officer in respect of purchase of car, has been set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) and Appeal filed by Revenue before Tribunal is also dismissed for assessment year 2009 2010. deduction in respect of purchase of car has been 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2017 10:04:11 ::: Shridhar Sutar 3 21-itxa-505.15.doc allowed. Learned Counsel further submits that plot was acquired by respondent for purpose of construction of cancer hospital. Substantial construction was carried out, because of lack of funds further progress in construction could not be made and so as to have funds for advancement of object of trust property was sought to be sold. However, same has not materialised and said land is not yet sold. According to learned Counsel, as far as payment of scholarship is concerned, scholarship is paid to students directly through educational institutions. Earlier, it was decided to give scholarship directly to students. Tribunal has appreciated said aspects. 4. We have considered submissions. 5. There may not be any dispute with proportion that if trust does not fulfill its object or engages in any activity against object of trust, then DIT (E) has power to cancel registration of trust under Section 12AA of Act. fact that appellant had put land on sale is not disputed. However, explanation has been given that assessee had undertaken 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2017 10:04:11 ::: Shridhar Sutar 4 21-itxa-505.15.doc construction of hospital and constructed substantial part of cancer hospital. However, could not complete construction because of financial stringency, and to achieve further object of trust decided to sale same. sale has not materialised and said property is not sold. It cannot be said that Tribunal has erred in its conclusion. 6. With regard to purchase of BMW car, it was stated that though said car was purchased in name of Trustee, it was used for purpose of trust only and deduction of same which was disallowed, has been allowed by Commissioner and confirmed by Tribunal. It shows that trust has purchased said car for its own use. As far as payment of scholarship is concerned, it has come on record that amount of scholarship has been paid to students directly through their educational institutions and not through PAAK foundation, though, initially it was decided to route said payment through PAAK foundation, but same has not been done and amount which was deposited for scholarship with PAAK foundation has been taken back by respondent. Tribunal after appreciation of evidence has arrived at plausible conclusion. 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2017 10:04:11 ::: Shridhar Sutar 5 21-itxa-505.15.doc 7. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises in present Appeal. Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (A. M. BADAR, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) 5 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2017 10:04:11 ::: CIT(Exemptions) v. TheCancerAid&ResearchFoundation