2016 (4) TMI 1179 - HC - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 12AA - non charitable activity - Held that - Not found any material which would indicate that the assessee or its affairs are not being carried out in accordance with the object of the Trust or institution. If these are two aspects referred to in subsection (3) of Section 12AA and the materials in that behalf were completely lacking then we do not find any reason for the Director to exercise the power which he purported to exercise in the present case. On this short ground alone the assessee s appeal should have been allowed by the Tribunal. Though the Tribunal has discussed the ambit and scope of the proviso to Clause 15 of Section 2 and subsection (3) of Section 12AA we do not find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case any such discussion was necessary and warranted once the appeal could have been allowed on the above short ground. With this conclusion we uphold the order of the Tribunal. We need not assign any other reason nor examine the contentions raised before us in further details. The questions as are posed by Mr. Malhotra and in the backdrop of these proceedings can be decided in a proper case. With these observations the appeal fails and it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging ITAT order for AY 2009-10, interpretation of Section 12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961, applicability of proviso to Clause 15 of Section 2, cancellation of registration of Trust for advancement of general public utility involving trade or business activities, genuineness of Trust's activities and compliance with objectives.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court challenged an ITAT order concerning the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue contended that the appeal raised substantial questions of law related to the interpretation of Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the newly inserted proviso to Clause 15 of Section 2 guided the exercise of power under Section 12AA(3), emphasizing that activities involving trade, commerce, or business for consideration may lead to cancellation of registration if not in line with charitable purposes.

The Court, however, found that no significant controversy arose in the present case. Despite extensive submissions and reliance on precedents, the Court declined to delve into academic questions. The focus remained on addressing substantial legal issues arising from the Income Tax Act adjudication. The case involved the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), facing potential registration withdrawal due to activities resembling trade or business exceeding ?10 lakhs in gross receipts.

The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) received a proposal highlighting MHADA's activities and substantial profits from housing sales and rentals. The Director issued a show cause notice based on these details, questioning the genuineness of MHADA's activities. MHADA defended its actions, emphasizing its non-profit motive and provision of affordable housing to middle-class families. The Court scrutinized the Director's order and found no evidence suggesting MHADA deviated from its trust objectives or engaged in non-charitable activities.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the ITAT order, emphasizing the lack of grounds for the Director's actions against MHADA. The Court highlighted the absence of material indicating non-compliance with trust objectives or lack of genuineness in MHADA's operations. While the Tribunal had discussed relevant legal provisions, the Court deemed such discussions unnecessary given the straightforward grounds for allowing the appeal. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision without delving into further arguments or reasons, leaving open the possibility of addressing raised questions in a suitable case.