The Commissioner cannot reject an application for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground that the trust has not yet commenced any charitable activities.

1. - The instant appeal filed by the appellant under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), is directed against order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "the ITAT") dated January 21, 2014, passed in ITA No. 1012/JP/2011.

2. The brief facts, which have been gathered on the basis of the order of the Tribunal, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the arguments of the officer present on behalf of the Revenue are that a public charitable trust came to be formed on April 22, 2010, namely, Vijay Vargiya Vani Charitable Trust with a view to carry on charitable activities. An application in Form No. 10A for seeking registration under section 12AA of the Act was moved to the Commissioner concerned on March 16, 2011. The Commissioner sought certain clarifications from the assessee-trust about activities being carried out till date, copy of income and expenditure account for the financial year 2010-11 and also as to show how clause 7(d) and (f) are charitable in nature in the trust deed. The Commissioner also found that the assessee-trust is running a magazine Vijayvergiya Vani, which though is being distributed free of cost but advertisement receipts to the tune of Rs. 1,44,800 had been received and that it was for the benefit of a particular section/caste of the society, i.e., "Vijayvergiya community" and not for the public at large and also held the advertisement received was in the nature of a commercial activity and after analysing the material placed on record rejected the application for grant of registration under section 12AA The order was challenged before the Tribunal by the assessee and the Tribunal, vide impugned order, allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the predominant objects of the trust are required to be seen at the time of grant of registration under section 12AA and once these objects have been found to be charitable in nature ancillary/subsidiary objects, which were relating to the purchase, acquire the land and building is secondary and need not be looked into at the time of granting of registration. It was also found by the Tribunal that the objects of the assessee were to run medical and educational institutions, provide education, medicine, food, clothing, etc., and after analysing the material placed on record directed the Commissioner to grant registration to the assessee, which order has been assailed before us.

3. Mr. N.S. Jangpangti, leaned officer appearing on behalf of the Revenue, contended that though the application for registration was moved by the assessee-trust but no evidence was led as to any amount having been incurred towards the charitable activities and once there was no expenditure towards charitable activities bona fide of the trust could not have been established and, therefore, the Commissioner has rightly rejected the application. He further contended that the two clauses, namely, (i) to purchase, acquire apply for land, building, premises or construct the building, and (ii) to publish newspaper, journal, magazine either daily fortnightly or monthly basis are not at all related to charity and even if one of the clauses is derogatory or not related with charitable activities, the Commissioner in his own discretion had right to reject the application, which he did and the Tribunal has not appreciated these clauses properly. He further contended that the assessee's receipts received from advertisements are in the nature of commercial activities and, therefore, if all these are put together, the claim of the assessee that it is carrying on charitable activities, was not proper. He contended that substantial questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal and needs consideration of this Hon'ble court.

4. We have heard the learned officer and have gone through the impugned order as well as the order of the Commissioner and, in our view, no question of law much less substantial question of law aris