IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.23 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.08.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh Appellant versus M/s Gaushala Trust Society, Spatu Road, Ambala City, Haryana Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL *** Present : Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed by revenue against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench 'A', Chandigarh dated 11.07.2018 reversing that of Commissioner, Income Tax, Chandigarh whereby Commissioner had refused registration under Section 12 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act) to respondent-Gaushala. 2. respondent admittedly runs Gaushala where there are 540 odd cows. It had applied for registration under Section 12 of Act and same was rejected by Commissioner holding :- (i)that respondent did not have any property in its name. (ii) that it had large FDRs. (iii)that out of total revenue of Rs.1.36 crores for year ending 31.03.2017 it had spent only Rs.1.44 lakhs on 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2019 10:42:03 ::: ITA No.23 of 2019 (O&M) 2 providing medicines to cows. (iv)that it was selling milk which cows in its possession were producing. 3. respondent filed appeal before Tribunal which noticed that respondent had claimed that only about 15% to 20% of cows were yielding milk. Tribunal further noticed that Deputy Director, ICD Project Ambala City had certified that amount of milk which was being produced by respondent would be yield of about 75 to 80 cows. Tribunal noticed that earlier respondent was functioning from its own premises but those premises were acquired by Government and compensation amount was put in fixed deposit because present premises which were occupied by respondent were under litigation and therefore respondent was justified in keeping this fixed deposit amount so that in case it had to vacate present premises it could acquire some other suitable premises for itself. Tribunal also noticed that Commissioner had given completely presumptuous finding that objects of respondent were to look after only sick and injured cows where as object of respondent was to maintain all cows. Tribunal noticed that Commissioner inexplicably did not understand or could not understand that society was maintaining and feeding and looking after 540 cows and therefore finding that it was spending only meager amount of its earning was wrong. Tribunal also noticed that finding of Commissioner that since respondent had no immovable property it could not claim benefit was wrong. 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 31-08-2019 10:42:03 ::: ITA No.23 of 2019 (O&M) 3 4. We are in agreement with views of Tribunal. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. 5. Since main case has been dismissed, pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 26.08.2019 pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No 3 of 3 Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh v. Gaushala Trust Society