JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
2. The petitioner claims to be a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act having charitable aims and objects and P.K. Jain its secretary (quoted in the impugned order dated September 22, 2005/ annexure 7 to the writ petition page 76 of the writ paper book).
3. The petitioner submitted an application and applied before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, for registration under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act (called "the Act"), read with Rule 11AA of the Income-tax Rules, having complied with requisite terms and conditions for such registration under Section 12AA of the Act.
4. The petitioner was granted certificate of registration on October 1, 1999, under Section 80G of the Act for a period of three years from January 20, 1999, to January 20, 2002. Application for renewal of registration was allowed on March 25, 2003, the aforesaid registration was further extended from February 25, 2002 to March 31, 2005. The petitioner again applied for extension of registration under Section 80G of the Act before expiration of registration which was to lapse on March 31, 2005. Queries were made by the concerned authorities by issuing a show-cause notice dated August 12, 2005. The petitioner claims to have submitted reply along with copies of acknowledgement receipts issued against in lieu of payments towards corpus funds during the relevant years and also copies of registered agreement executed between the petitioner and the land-owner indicating payment of advances for purchasing agricultural land. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner could not submit "accounts" for the year ending 2005 as the same was not available from the chartered accountant who was supposed to audit and prepare the balance-sheet of his accounts (para. 13 of the writ petition) read with the letter of the petitioner dated September 16, 2005, addressed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut-annexure 6 to the writ petition, page 39 of the writ paper book.
5. The petitioner has, vide paras. 16 to 30 of the writ petition, attempted to demonstrate its grievance with reference to the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated September 22, 2005 (annexure 7 to the writ petition). It is pointed out that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, has erred in law and committed manifest error apparent on the record in concluding that the conditions laid down in Section 80G(5) of the Act, Rule 11AA of the Income-tax Rules, were not fulfilled and to thereby rejecting the application for renewal of registration of the society under Section 80G(5)(iv) of the Income-tax Act.
6. The petitioner further contends that the authority should have afforded opportunity to the petitioner for filing requisite documents and a reasonable opportunity to furnish information, if any, found lacking on record.
7. Our notice is drawn to the "aims and objects" of the society which are reproduced in the impugned order itself. In view of Sub-clauses (d) and (m) of "aims and objects", to purchase agricultural land cannot be treated beyond the scope of the said "aims and objects" of the society. For convenience the aforesaid Clauses (d) and (m) are quoted:
(d) To establish and maintain educational institutions, laboratories and information services to facilitate the process of expansion of knowledge and research.
(m) To erect, construct or organise such bodies like printing press, laboratories and hospital accommodation, which may help in furtherance of the objectives of the VBMS.
8. The petitioner refers to para. 7 of the impugned order, which read ... As indicated above, the society made advance for purchase of agricultural land. The total advance for purchase of agricultural land in respect of which evidence has been furnished, is for Rs. 36,37,000 only. A question arises whether advance for purchase of agricultural land or expenses for purchase of agricultural land will amount to application of funds for the objects of the society reproduced above, the claim of the society is not correct....
9. In view of the above, we have no doubt, purchase of land is not an activity which may be held beyond the scope of the a fore quoted Clauses (d) and (m) which are part of aims and objects of the society. It is, there fore, not possible to conclude that the petitioner by purchasing agricultural land indulged in an activity which is beyond "aims and objects" of the society.
10. The impugned order dated September 22, 2005 (annexure 7 to the writ petition), suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of record and deserves to be set aside.
11. In the result, the impugned order dated September 22, 2005/annexure 7 to the writ petition, is hereby set aside with a direction to the concerned authority to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
12. The writ petition is allowed subject to the direction given above.
13. No order as to costs.