9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out by the assessee no longer survives or holds good, would not call for interference by this court in exercise of its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction. To sum up, we are unable to exercise our discretion to enable the assessee to continue to utilise and enjoy the registration despite the wholesale change in the objects without giving its immediate intimation to the Commissioner. Prima facie, when a person deliberately makes an alteration in the objects or in the memorandum of association, it will be presumed that the alteration has been made because some change is required. Alterations are not made for the fun of it. Thus the petitioners will therefore be under a heavy burden to demonstrate similarity if they wish to press such a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December 26, 2006, (annexure 7 to the writ petition), under section 143(3) of the Act. 6. The Income-tax Officer held, in the said order, that a comparison clearly shows that the original objects have been totally altered in the year 2000. The Income-tax Officer also says in that order that the petitioner-society failed to give intimation about the change/alteration in its objects to the Commissioner of Income-tax in accordance with rule 17B and Form No.10A. He pointed out that Form No. 10A, which is to be used in applying for registration under section 12A, itself contains an undertaking in the following words : "I undertake to communicate forthwith any alteration in the terms of the trust or in the rules governing the institution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the powers conferred upon the Commissioner by the statute. 10. The argument is misconceived. The registration is granted by the Commissioner. It can be cancelled by the Commissioner under section 12AA(3). However, the words of that statutory provision show that it applies where the objects of the trust or institution remain the same on paper, but the actual activities of such trust or institution are contrary to the said objects or are fictitious or fraudulent or not genuine or not within the scope of those objects. However, where the objects of the trust or institution, which were the basis of grant of registration, are altered after such grant of registration, the very foundation of the registration having been removed by a voluntary a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners had attempted to raise the plea that the new objects were, for all practical purposes, the same as the original objects. The plea was not considered at that stage because by the time the writ petition came up for arguments, the assessment had already been completed and an appeal was permissible under the Act. 12. We have not been shown that the original objects and the altered objects of the petitioner in its memorandum of association are practically the same or are charitable. Prima facie such issues are pure questions of fact. 13. The appellate authority, where the appeal of the petitioner against the assessment order dated December 26, 2006, is pending, has not yet granted an interim order. Prima facie, when a person delib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting or denying the interim order. In other words the circular merely means that where there is some prima facie case, and in addition to the prima facie case, the assessed income is substantially more than the returned income, the recovery in that event should remain in abeyance during appeal. It would be difficult to accept that even where there is no prima facie case at all, recovery should be stayed merely because the assessed income is much higher than the returned income. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has then relied upon a decision of the learned single judge of this court reported in Shivangi Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 62; [2003] UPTC 814. This decision lays down that the decision rejecting the stay app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
