Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (4) TMI 1224 - HC - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and applicability of Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Retrospective application of the Finance Act 2010 amendment.
3. Validity of the cancellation of registration under Section 12A of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Section 12AA(3):
The core issue revolves around whether the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the petitioner-Institution under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the amendment by the Finance Act 2010. The petitioner argued that the cancellation of registration on 13.03.2008 was without jurisdiction as the amendment conferring such power came into effect only on 01.06.2010. The court noted that Section 12AA(3) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, effective from 01.10.2004, which provided the Commissioner with the power to cancel the registration of a Trust if its activities were not genuine or not carried out in accordance with its objects. The court concluded that the Commissioner had the power to cancel the registration even before the 2010 amendment, as the power was already vested by the 2004 amendment.

2. Retrospective Application of the Finance Act 2010 Amendment:
The petitioner contended that the amendment to Section 12AA(3) by the Finance Act 2010, effective from 01.06.2010, could not be applied retrospectively to cancel the registration granted before this date. The court examined the legislative intent and the explanatory notes issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which clarified that the amendment was applicable from the assessment year 2011-2012 onwards. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer, emphasizing that administrative circulars are binding and provide legitimate aid in statutory interpretation. The court concluded that the 2010 amendment was clarificatory in nature and did not confer new powers but clarified the existing powers of the Commissioner to cancel registrations granted under Section 12A.

3. Validity of the Cancellation of Registration under Section 12A:
The petitioner argued that the cancellation of registration was invalid as it was done under Section 12AA(3), which was not applicable to registrations granted under Section 12A before 01.04.1997. The court noted that the registration of the petitioner-Institution was granted on 09.07.1984 under Section 12A(a). The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 11, 12, 12A, and 12AA, concluding that these sections must be read together to understand the powers of the Commissioner. The court stated that even before the 2010 amendment, the Commissioner had the power to cancel registrations if the activities of the Trust were not genuine or not in accordance with its objects. The court found that the reasons for cancellation, such as the collection of capitation fees and misuse of funds, were in consonance with the powers conferred on the Commissioner under Section 12AA(3).

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the cancellation of the registration by the Commissioner. The court concluded that the Commissioner had the jurisdiction and power to cancel the registration even before the 2010 amendment, and the reasons for cancellation were valid and in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the 2010 amendment was clarificatory and did not retrospectively confer new powers on the Commissioner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates