2006 (5) TMI 62 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioners are challenging the order of CIT passed under section 154 by which Commissioner has cancelled the last two renewal orders dated January 2 2002 and June 4 2004 issued under section 80G and has directed petitioner No. 1 (the assessee-trust) not to use the said renewals while accepting donations from the public and to clarify in writing that donations given to the said trust are not entitled to deduction under section 80G. - petitioner has submitted relying upon Explanation 2 to section 80G(5C) that the impugned cancellation order of the Commissioner should not affect the past donations which may have been advanced to the trust relying upon renewals of exemption which have been cancelled by the impugned order - This question does not arise at present in this case. It may be considered in the appropriate proceedings as and when this question arises and we decline to go into this issue

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to cancellation of renewal orders under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the Commissioner of Income-tax's order cancelling the last two renewal orders issued under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The trust deed executed by the settlor in 1991 established a charitable trust named "Subharati Krishan Kumar Bhatnagar Charitable Trust" for various charitable purposes. The trust was registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, and exemption under section 80G was initially granted in 1994 and renewed multiple times until the last two renewals were cancelled in 2006. The petitioners argued that a second trust deed in 1995, creating a new trust with additional objects, was merely a modification of the original trust. However, the court found that the second trust deed did not refer to the first trust and was a separate entity unlinked to the original trust.

The court noted that the second trust of 1995 was never registered under section 12A or granted exemption under section 80G. The Commissioner of Income-tax highlighted misrepresentations made by the second trust regarding the availability of exemption under section 80G meant for the first trust. The court emphasized that discretionary jurisdiction should not be used to perpetuate illegality, error, or fraud. The petitioners' attempt to argue that education could be considered a charitable purpose under section 2(15) was not entertained, as factual examinations were necessary for such determinations.

The court directed that if the petitioner applied for registration of the second trust created in 1995, the concerned authority should decide on registration within a month. If registration was granted, the second trust could apply for exemption under section 80G, with a decision to be made within two months. The court declined to address the impact of the cancellation order on past donations or the authority of the Commissioner to pass such cancellation orders under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The writ petition was disposed of with the given directions, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures and avoiding perpetuation of wrongdoing.