2016 (8) TMI 680 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - non-registration of the trust - Held that - It is admitted case that the assessee was incorporated in the year 1986 and thereafter has been continued to discharge its function as registered trust and was looking after the affairs of Khatu Shyamji. By virtue of order of the Tribunal dated January 28, 2010, the registration was granted with effect from April 1, 2008, however have held that the assessee, though was not registered and the application was not processed but the benefit of being the registered trust were required to be extended to the assessee under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act. In view thereof, the assessee is required to be treated as registered trust with effect from April 1, 2007. Since we have already held that the assessee is required to be treated as registered trust with effect from April 1, 2007, therefore, in our view, if we read the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 12A, then it is clear that the reopening under section 147/148 is not permitted. No reopening can be made on account of non-registration of the trust. In view thereof, we hold that the reopening made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/148 of the Act was ill founded and was not in accordance with law. In view thereof this ground is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of the assessment order under sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Taxability of the receipt of ?2,08,00,000 under sections 2(24) and 115BBC of the Income-tax Act.
3. Retrospective application of registration under section 12A for the assessment year 2007-08.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Assessment Order:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the assessment order dated April 9, 2013, under sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal admitted an additional ground questioning the legality of the action taken under section 147 read with section 148, arguing it was void ab initio. The Tribunal emphasized that the reopening of the assessment was ill-founded and not in accordance with law, as the assessment proceedings were pending when the registration was granted. Therefore, the reopening under section 147/148 was held to be invalid.

2. Taxability of the Receipt of ?2,08,00,000:
The appellant contended that the receipt of ?2,08,00,000 was a capital receipt and not taxable. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) treated the receipt as income under section 2(24)(iia) and invoked section 115BBC, arguing that the receipts were voluntary contributions and anonymous donations. The Tribunal, however, held that since the appellant was to be treated as a registered trust for the assessment year 2007-08, the provisions of section 2(24) and section 115BBC were not applicable. Consequently, the addition of ?2,08,00,000 as income was deleted.

3. Retrospective Application of Registration under Section 12A:
The Tribunal examined the retrospective application of section 12A(2) and its provisos, which were inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2014. It was held that the appellant, having filed for registration on March 16, 2009, and granted registration effective from April 1, 2008, should be treated as a registered trust for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in SNDP Yogam v. ADIT (Exemption) and held that the beneficial provisions of the amended section 12A(2) should be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefits under sections 11 and 12 for the assessment year 2007-08.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 was invalid, and the receipt of ?2,08,00,000 was not taxable. The appellant was entitled to the benefits of sections 11 and 12 for the assessment year 2007-08, considering the retrospective application of the registration under section 12A. The order pronounced on June 2, 2016, concluded that all grounds were decided in favor of the appellant and against the Revenue.