9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal erred in holding that the Appellant was under an obligation to intimate the amendments in its objects to Respondent No.2 and the consequence of such non-intimation shall be that the exemption under sections 11 and 12 will not be available in respect of the amounts applied by the Appellant towards such amendment objects? c) Alternatively the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, whether it erred in concluding that the benefit of registration granted under section 12A of the Act will not be available to the amended objects? d) Alternatively Respondent No.2 was justified in cancelling the registration granted to the Appellant under section 12A of the Act whether such order should have effect only from the date when it was passed and could not relate back to an earlier period?" 4. The Appellant/Petitioner, namely the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), is a society established under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act with the aim of promoting sports, particularly cricket. The BCCI was granted registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 12 February 1996. 5. The Memorandum of Association of the BCCI was amended on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No.1041 of 2012 challenging the ITAT's order, inter alia holding that the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009 did not amount to an order cancelling or withdrawing the BCCI registration under Section 12A of the IT Act and consequently dismissing the BCCI's Appeal as not maintainable under section 253 of the IT Act. 12. The BCCI, as a matter of abundant caution, instituted Writ Petition No.1898 of 2012, challenging the ITAT's impugned order dated 30 March 2012 to the extent it had delved into the merits of the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009 and virtually upheld the view of the DIT expressed therein. The BCCI also challenged the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009 in this Petition. 13. Therefore, the Appeal and the Writ Petition were admitted and directed to be heard and disposed of together. 14. Mr. Pardiwalla, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner-BCCI, asserted that the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009, in essence, amounted to the cancellation of BCCI's registration dated 12 February 1996 under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961. He contended that cancelling the registration was unlawful, null, and v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Mr. Chhotaray submitted that the impugned communication dated 28 December 2009 was legal and valid. He submitted that this communication neither cancelled nor withdrew the BCCI's registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961. However, this communication only informed the BCCI that their registration, based on the objects at the time of registration, did not survive or ceased to survive upon the BCCI amending such objects. He submitted that this view of the DIT was entirely consistent with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Allahabad Agricultural Institute and Another Vs Union of India and Others (2007) 291 ITR 116 (All). 20. Mr. Chhotaray submitted that the BCCI failed to abide by this undertaking after undertaking to inform the DIT about the changes in its objects. In such circumstances, the DIT merely informed the BCCI about the consequences of amending its objects, i.e., the non-survival of registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961. He referred to the observations in paragraphs 22 and 29 of the impugned order and submitted that the findings/observations made therein were justified in the facts of the present case. He also reiterated the contentions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he BCCI was granted registration under Section 12A of the IT Act on 12 February 1996. It also records that on 01 June 2006 and 21 August 2007, the BCCI amended its objects, but no intimation about such amendments was given to the registering authority/department. It then refers to the Allahabad High Court's decision in the case of Allahabad Agricultural Institute (supra). It concludes that as a consequence of the amendments made by the BCCI to its objects, the registration granted to BCCI under Section 12A on 12 February 1996 "does not survive from the date on which the objects were changed, i.e. 01.06.2006". 26. The BCCI, after considering the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009 as an order/communication cancelling its registration under Section 12A, instituted an appeal, ITA No.1285 of 2010, before the ITAT. Section 253 (1) (c) provides that an appeal shall lie before the ITAT against an order made by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under Section 12AA or Section 12AB of the IT Act 1961. Section 12AA (3) refers to a written order cancelling the registration of a charitable trust or an institution. 27. The Special Counsel for the Revenue contended b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2A, prior to amendment, does not arise." "29 Since the stand of the Revenue, as already stated, is that the letter dated 18th November 2009, is only advisory in nature and is not an exercise of a statutory power and that it is not a withdrawal or cancellation of registration under section 12A, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable under section 253 of the Act." "30. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th March 2012." 29. From the above, it is apparent, that the ITAT accepted the Revenue's contention that the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009 was not an order of cancellation or withdrawal of registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961 or an order made under Section 12AA (3) of the IT Act, 1961 and, therefore, no appeal was maintainable against the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009. This is clear from the above-quoted observations/findings in the ITAT's impugned order dated 30 March 2012. 30. At this stage, we do not propose to go into the issue as to whether the ITAT was correct or justified in accepting the Revenue's contention that the impugned comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch ...... (illegible) placed in the paper book vide Pages-36 to 41. These changes have been highlighted during the course of hearing. We do not want to list out the amendments as the Revenue has not examined the same, clause by clause and come to any conclusion. Suffice to say that some of the amendments are material and substantive, one of them being holding ODIs and Twenty-20, any other matches, etc. 21. These amendments when read together leaves us in no doubt that certain substantial and material changes have taken place to the memorandum, as well as to the rules and regulations which permit commercial interest to administrators in IPL, Champion League and Twenty-20. In our opinion, the Revenue authorities definitely have a right to examine the question whether these changes in the memorandum, rules and regulations are in consonance with the provisions of the Act so as to enable the assessee to continue to claim benefit as a charitable Institution under section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act. 22. We are of the opinion that the benefits that flow from registration of an assessee under Section 12A, cannot be extended to the amended clauses of the memorandum and rules and regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ociety or the activities of the assessee are such that they are in violation of the provisions of the Act, then the Assessing Officer is free to make assessments in accordance with law. In other words, the Assessing Officer is not bound by the registration granted under section 12A, to the extent the memorandum and rules and regulations have been amended. 29. To sum up, we are of the opinion that the registration granted under section 12A, on 12th February 1996, and the benefits flowing therefrom, cannot be extended to the amended objects of the society unless the DIT examines the same and comes to a conclusion that the registration under section 12A, can be extended to the revised objects, memorandum and by-laws. It would be illogical to hold that once an Institution is registered under section 12A, no matter whatever may be the changes in the objects, rules and regulations, for any number of times, the Institution should be given the benefit of section 11 to 13 of the Act, in view of the original registration granted under section 12A. In our opinion, the assessee society should approach the registering authority with the changes and amendments so that the authorities could exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the Petitioner had an alternate remedy, should not have made any observations touching upon the merits of the matter. 37. In Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam Vs. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar AIR 1965 SC 338, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the High Court, after concluding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction over the suit, dealt with the cross objection filed concerning the adjustment of certain amount paid by the Respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the High Court reached the conclusion that the revenue court alone had the jurisdiction over the suit and therefore in ordering the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, the High Court could not have dealt with the cross objection filed by the Appellant with respect to the adjustment of certain amount paid by the Respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: - "When the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint". 38. In Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nored by the Respondents, inter alia, when deciding the issue of the validity of the assessment order dated 30 December 2009 or when disposing of the show cause notices issued to the BCCI for withdrawal or cancellation of its registration under Section 12 A of the IT Act, 1961. The income Tax appeal No.1041 of 2012 is disposed of in the above terms. 42. In so far as the challenge to the impugned communication/order 28 December 2009 in Writ Petition No. 1890 of 2020 is concerned, we have already noted the Revenue's stand that the said impugned communication/ order is neither an order for cancellation nor for withdrawal of the BCCI's registration under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961. Mr. Chhotaray, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, reiterated this stance. 43. The ITAT in its order dated 30 March 2012 has held that the impugned communication/order dated 28 December 2009 (incorrectly referred to as letter dated 18 November 2009 in paragraph 29 of ITAT's order) is "..... only advisory in nature and is not in an exercise of a statutory power and that it is not a withdrawal or cancellation of registration under section 12A....." 44. The Revenue Authorities have been conferred s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been claimed. The assessee, therefore, appealed the assessment order and applied for a stay on recovery of the demanded tax. The assessing officer rejected this stay application by his order dated 20 February 2007. Therefore, the assessee challenged this order dated 20 February 2007, refusing stay of the demand by instituting a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court. 48. The Allahabad High Court was only concerned with the legality of the order dated 20 February 2007, declining stay of the demand pending adjudication appeal against the assessment order. In this context, some observations were made regarding the impugned assessment order in which exemption was denied to the assessee for having changed its objects and failed to intimate the registering authority of such changes. The Court held that on such facts, no case was made out to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and interfere with the order dated 20 February 2007 declining stay of the demand. The Court held that the assessee had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, and therefore, there was no error in declining the stay of the demand. 49. The observations in Allahabad Agricultural Institu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
