9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged by the assessee read as under: That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is had and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.0 Jurisdiction 2.1 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) erred in law and on facts in holding that she has jurisdiction to cancel the registration by passing an order u/s 12AA(3) of the Act. 2.2 That the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) passed u/s 12AA(3) is without jurisdiction as the order cancelling the registration can be passed only by Registering Authority. 3.0 Grounds regarding finding of alleged facts: 3.1 That the finding of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itting that the facts found are correct, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) in cancelling the registration ignoring the fact that the appellant is actually carrying on the educational activities. 5.2 The finding of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) that just because the appellant had allegedly collected capitation fees and allegedly carried on such activities cannot be said that the activities of the trust have not been carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust. 5.3 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) ought to have held that the alleged activities of the trust may at worst lead to disallowance u/s 11 of the Act in respect of the income earned from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsara Education & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (2013)36 Taxmann.com 338 and also the decision rendered by Hyderabad bench of Tribunal in the case of Vodithala Education Society Vs. ADIT (2008) 20 SOT 353, the Ld. CIT(A) cancelled the registration granted u/s 12A of the Act to the assessee with retrospective effect from assessment year 2010-11. 5. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessments completed by the AO for assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17 by making various additions and also rejecting the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act were challenged before Ld. CIT(A) and then before the Tribunal. He submitted that Bangalore bench of Tribunal has since disposed of the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-11 to 2016-17, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contentions and perused the record. It is the contention of the assessee that the impugned order cancelling the registration granted to the assessee u/s 12A of the Act has been passed by the Ld Principal CIT on the basis of findings noticed by the search officials and also by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It is the contention of the Ld. A.R. that all the findings and additions have since been deleted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it was submitted that the grounds on which the registration was cancelled no longer survive now. Besides, the above, the assessee is also questioning the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. Principal CIT while cancelling the registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Act and also challenging th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
