IT : Where assessee cricket board arranged international matches and received share in broadcasting right and advertisement sales from its apex body BCCI, under section 12AA(3) Commissioner could not cancel its registration by invoking first proviso to section 2(15)
■■■
[2013] 40 taxmann.com 527 (Rajkot - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH
Saurashtra Cricket Association
v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot - 2*
T. K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND D. K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND D. K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT APPEAL NO. 64 (RJT.) 2013
OCTOBER 25, 2013
Section 12AA, read with section 2(15), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust - Registration of [Cancellation of registration] - Assessee-trust was created for promotion and development of sports in Saurashtra region - Commissioner (Appeals) cancelled registration of assessee-trust by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) by observing that assessee-trust had arranged one day international matches of cricket and, in turn, had received TV subsidy/subvention income, i.e., sharing of TV broadcasting right, and advertisement sales income; and, thus, it had carried out activities in nature of trade, commerce or business in view of first proviso to section 2(15) - Commissioner held that object of assessee-trust was no longer of charitable nature - Whether since registration had been cancelled by Commissioner on basis of amended provisions of section 2(15), action taken by Commissioner did not fall within permissible limits of section 12AA(3) and therefore, impugned order cancelling assessee's registration was bad in law - Held, yes [Para 16] [In favour of assessee]
Circulars and Notifications : Circular No. 395, dated 24-9-1984
FACTS
| ■ | The assessee-trust was created for the promotion of game of cricket in Saurashtra region. | |
| ■ | The Commissioner cancelled the registration of the assessee-trust by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) by observing that the trust has arranged one day international matches of cricket and in turn had received TV subsidy/subvention income i.e. sharing of TV broadcasting right income from BCCI and advertisement sales income. The Commissioner was of the view that the assessee-trust had carried out the activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business in view of the first proviso to section 2(15) and, therefore, the object of the assessee-trust are no longer of charitable in nature. | |
| ■ | In the instant appeal, before the Tribunal, the assessee-trust contended that : |
| - | Section 12AA(3) does not extend the power to Commissioner for re-examination of the 'objects' of the trust or institution once registration has been granted under section 12A. | |
| - | The insertion of first proviso to section 2(15) with effect from 1-4-2009 would not have any bearing on section 12AA(3) since it does not extend to the objects of the trust or institution but only to its activities as stated therein. |
| ■ | The revenue's case was that the assessee-trust was given registration under section 12AA on the ground that it is a charitable institution in as much as it is engaged in the advancement of an object of general public utility in the form of developing and promoting the game of cricket. | |
| ■ | Its activities were later on oriented towards generating income and revenue by converting the sport of cricket into a celebrated industry, which means, the present activities carried on by the assessee are not genuine, when compared to the objects stated at the time of getting registration under section 12AA. |
HELD
| ■ | The Registration has been cancelled by Commissioner on the basis of amended provisions of section 2(15). The action taken by the Commissioner, does not fall within the permissible limits of section 12AA(3) and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. | |
| ■ | In the case of Madras Motor Sports Club v. DIT (Exemptions)[2013] 141 ITD 1/30 taxmann.com 135 (Chennai), in almost identical facts the registration was restored, which was cancelled by DIT (Exemptions), observing that the nature of objects of the assessee cannot fluctuate in tandem with the quantum of receipts mentioned in the first proviso to section 2(15). | |
| ■ | The issue raised by the Commissioner, in the impugned order regarding the activities of the trust can be examined by the Assessing Officer in the appropriate proceedings. The findings given by the Commissioner in the impugned order is not permissible keeping in view the limited power available to him under section 12AA(3). Therefore, it would be open for the Assessing Officer to consider all the issue raised in the impugned order, if so advised, in the course of assessment proceedings of relevant years. [Para 16] | |
| ■ | Therefore, the Registration granted to the assessee-trust under section 12A was to be restored. |
CASE REVIEW
Gujarat Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption) [2013] 33 taxmann.com 387 (Ahd. - Trib.).
CASES REFERRED TO
Gujarat Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption) [2013] 33 taxmann.com 387 (Ahd. - Trib.) (para 5), Vidarbha Cricket Association v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 3 (Nag.) of 2010, dated 30-5-2011] (para 5), Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 902 (Ahd.) of 2010] (para 5), Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 754 (A) of 2010] (para 5), Gujarat Maritime Board v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 36 (Ahd.) of 2011] (para 5), Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. v. DIT (Exemption) [2012] 23 taxmann.com 319/52 SOT 149 (Mum.) (URO) (para 5), Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 Taxman 501 (SC) (para 6), Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2011] 202 Taxman 1/13 taxmann.com 175/[2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) (para 8), Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust v. Asstt. DIT (Exemption) [2013] 144 ITD 280/35 taxmann.com 552 (Ahd. - Trib.) (para 7), Mumbai Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption) [2012] 138 ITD 338/24 taxmann.com 99 (Mum.) (para 9), Tamil Nadu Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 57 SOT 439/32 taxmann.com 50 (Chennai) (para 10), Hiralal Bhagwati v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 188 (Guj.)(para 14), Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 239 ITR 775/106 Taxman 166 (SC) (para 15), Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589/103 Taxman 623 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 541/226 ITR 625 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 149/62 Taxman 471 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons [1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) (para 15),CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) (para 15),CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 236 (SC) (para 15), Controller of Estate Duty v. R. Kanakasabai [1973] 89 ITR 251 (SC) (para 15), CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC) (para 15) and Madras Motor Sports Club v. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 141 ITD 1/30 taxmann.com 135 (Chennai) (para 16).
Tushar P. Hemani for the Appellant. Dr. M.L. Meena for the Respondent.
ORDER
T.K. Sharma, Judicial Member — This appeal by the assessee-trust is against the order dated 28.01.2013 of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-2, Rajkot u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee-trust was created and instituted for the promotion and development of sports in Saurashtra region. The Commissioner of Income-tax, after duly considering the objects of the assessee-trust and genuineness of its activities, has granted the registration of trust u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act vide its order No. CIT-R/65-5/138/87-88 dated 05.05.1989. Subsequently, in the impugned order dated 28.01.2013, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-2, Rajkot cancelled the registration of the assessee-trust by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act by observing that the trust has arranged one day international matches of cricket and in turn has received TV subsidy/subvention income i.e. sharing of TV broadcasting right income from BCCI and advertisement sales income. Therefore, the ld CIT is of the view that the assessee-trust had carried out the activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business in view of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act and therefore, the object of the assessee-trust are no longer of charitable in nature. Aggrieved with this impugned order dated 28.01.2013 of CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot, the assessee-trust is now in appeal before this Tribunal, on the following grounds:—
| "1. | The ld. CIT has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in cancelling registration of trust u/s 12AA(3) of the Act after holding that the activities carried out by the Appellant-Trust are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and in view of amended provisions of S 2(15) of the Act. | |
| 2. | The ld. CIT has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in not appreciating the scheme of the Act whereby he is empowered to cancel registration of trust only under provisions of S. 12AA(3) of the Act and that also after recording a satisfaction only in two circumstances viz. (a) the activities of the Trust are not genuine or (b) the activities of the Trust are not carrying out in accordance with the objects of the trust. In the facts of the present case none of these two conditions are satisfied and therefore the action of ld. CIT is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. | |
| 3. | The ld. CIT has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in not following the binding decision of Jurisdictional ITAT in the case ofGujarat Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption) [2013] 33 taxmann.com 387 (Ahd. - Trib.) which was cited and relied upon in the proceedings before him. | |
| 4. | Under the circumstances and facts of the case, the action of the ld CIT in cancelling the registration is beyond his power and jurisdiction, and therefore the same is required to be treated as null and void and be quashed accordingly." |
3. At the time of hearing before us, on behalf of the assessee, Shri Tushar P Hemani, Advocate appeared and contended that as per provisions contained in subsection 3 of section 12AA of the Act, the registration granted to the Trust can be cancelled by the CIT if the following two conditions are satisfied:—
| (a) | The activities of the trust or institution are not genuine; or | |
| (b) | The activities of the trust or institution are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution. |
4. The ld counsel of the assessee also pointed out that section 12AA(3) of the Act does not extend the power to CIT for re-examination of the "objects" of the trust or institution once registration has been granted u/s 12A of the Act. The ld counsel of the assessee submitted that the insertion of first proviso to section 2(15) with effect from 01.04.2009 would not have any bearing on section 12AA(3) since it does not extend to the objects of the trust or institution but only to its activities as stated therein. He further submitted that, in the present case, the assessee-trust was instituted for the promotion of game of cricket in Saurashtra and Kutch and throughout from its getting Registration of Trust from 1989 to till today and the said activities of the assessee-trust has been treated as genuine and charitable activities and exemption has always been granted to the assessee-trust u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. He further submitted that there is no change in the objects for which the Trust was instituted in as much as genuineness of the activities have never been questioned and doubted. He also pointed out that merely because of insertion of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the activities of the assessee-trust cannot be treated as non-genuine. To sum-up, the ld counsel of the assessee submitted that nowhere in the impugned order u/s 12AA(3) the ld CIT judiciously satisfied that any of the two conditions to cancel the registration fulfilled and therefore the action of the ld CIT in cancelling the registration is beyond his jurisdiction.
5. Continuing his argument, the ld counsel of the assessee, pointed out that the controversy involved in this appeal is directly covered by the decision of the Co ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption)[2013] 33 taxman.com 387 (Ahd. - Trib.) (copy of the same placed on records), wherein also the registration was cancelled in view of first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act by the Commissioner. Reliance was also placed on the decision of ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 3 (Nag.) of 2010, dated 30-5-2011] (relevant extract of which is reproduced in the order of Gujarat Cricket Association (supra), wherein also the registration was cancelled in view of first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act by the Commissioner, but the Tribunal in both the aforesaid cases reversed the view of ld CIT in cancelling the registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act. The ld counsel of the assessee also placed on record the following decisions of the co-ordinate benches of ITAT, wherein it has been held that until and unless conditions laid down u/s 12AA(#) are not satisfied, registration of Trust cannot be cancelled:—
| (a) | Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No. 902 (Ahd.) of 2010] | |
| (b) | Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. DIT (Exemption) [IT Appeal No.754 (A) of 2010] | |
| (c) | Gujarat Maritime Board v. ACIT [IT Appeal No.36 (Ahd.) of 2011] | |
| (d) | Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. v. DIT (Exemption) [2012] 23 taxmann.com 319/52 SOT 149 (Mum.) (URO) |
6. With regard to the activities carried out by the assessee-trust, the ld counsel of the assessee pointed out that those activities are charitable in nature and not in the nature of trade, commerce or business in view of amended provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act, because the entire issue has to be seen from the two limbs of the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act viz.;—
| (a) | Whether the promotion of sports and games, cricket in the present case, is charitable or not within the definition as provided u/s 2(15) of the Act and | |
| (b) | Whether such promotion of sports and games of cricket are carried out in the profit-motive or not so to be treated as in the nature of trade, commerce or business or charitable purpose. |
With regard to the first limb as mentioned in (a) above, the ld counsel of the assessee-trust, invited our attention to the circular No.395 [F. No.181(5) 82/IT(A-I)], dated 24-09-1984 wherein the Board has advised that promotion of sports and games is considered to be a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2 (15) of the Act. With regard to the second limb as mentioned in (b) above, the ld counsel of the assessee-trust submitted that the law is settled by the larger bench of Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 Taxman 501 that (i) the primary or dominant purpose of the trust or institution has to be examined to determine whether the said trust/institution is involved in carrying out any activity for the profit and (ii) if the "object" of the trust or institution is to carry out object of general public utility and this is the primary or dominant purpose and not carrying on any activity for profit, the same would satisfy the requirements of Section 2(15) of the Act.
7. It was further submitted by the ld counsel of the assessee that the first proviso to section 2(15) of the act should not generalized to each and every facts of the case where there is a surplus over the expenditure in respect of the activities or objects carried out by the trust which are in any case of the charitable purpose. He also submitted that the cardinal principle is the predominant object of the trust and if the predominant object of the Trust is of charitable nature and with no-profit motive, the said activities cannot be treated as trade, commerce or business merely because some surplus has remained left over the expenditure to carry out such activities. The ld counsel of the assessee also pointed that even after the insertion of proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the following authorities, after following the law laid down by Apex Court in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association(supra), have taken a view that if the predominant object of the Trust is of charitable nature and with no-profit motive, the said activities cannot be treated as trade, commerce or business merely because some surplus has remained left over the expenditure to carry out such activities:
| (a) | Bombay Presidency Golf Club Ltd. (supra) | |
| (b) | Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT (Exemptions) [2011] 202 Taxman 1/13 taxmann.com 175/[2012] 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) | |
| (c) | Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust v. Asstt. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 144 ITD 280/35 taxmann.com 552 (Ahd. - Trib.) |
8. The ld counsel of the assessee further pleaded that, in the present case, the main object of the Trust is to promote and encourage the game of cricket in Saurashtra and Kutch by organizing coaching schemes, tournaments, exhibition matches and other matches etc. The attention is further invited to the clause 3(j) of MOA which provides "to organize matches for the achievements of the objects of the Association and utilize the net proceeds thereof towards the implementation of the object set therein". It is submitted that all the receipts arising or accruing to the assessee-trust are on account of the activities carried out to meet the object of the assessee-trust i.e. to promote and encourage the game of cricket in Saurashtra and Kutch by organizing coaching schemes, tournaments, exhibition matches and other matches etc, and they are not with the intention to carry out any trade, commerce or business with profit-motive. Such receipts should be strictly confined to the attainment of the objects of the assessee-trust and with no intention to carry out any trade, commerce or business.
9. With regard to the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Mumbai Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemption [2012] 138 ITD 338/24 taxmann.com 99 relied upon by the ld CIT in the impugned order; the counsel of the assessee pointed out that the same is distinguishable because in that case it was found that (a) Mumbai Cricket Association entered into an agreement with another party for running activities such as restaurants, bar, banquet halls, etc apart from cricket academy and (b) the land was allotted by MMRDA to assessee strictly for non-commercial activity, which was violated by the planning, executing the activity of recreation centre. Whereas, in the present case, neither such commercial activities have been carried out by the assessee-trust nor any violation has been made by the assessee-trust; on the contrary, the assessee-trust carries out all the activities in accordance with the objects of the assessee-trust only. Therefore, he pointed out that, the ratio laid down by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Mumbai Cricket Association (supra) is not applicable in the present case.
10. On the other hand, Dr. M.L. Meena, DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue vehemently supported the order of ld CIT in cancelling the Registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act. The ld Departmental Representative relied upon on the of ITAT, Chennai Bench 'B' dated 22.02.2013 in the case ofTamil Nadu Cricket Association v. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 57 SOT 439/32 taxmann.com 50 and contended that by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2009, the Legislature made a specific provision by inserting sub-section (8) to section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 that wherever the first proviso to the section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is applicable, the trust does not become liable for exemption of its income u/s 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since in the case of the trust, the first proviso is clearly applicable, the trust is not liable for exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the income of the trust would not be exempted ab-initio, there is no requirement to continue the registration in perpetuity.
11. In support of this, the ld Departmental Representative relied upon paragraph 11 of Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mumbai Cricket Association (supra), wherein the ITAT held that by virtue of power u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 "there is no bar on review of activities of the association." The Commissioner can review the activities of the association at any given point of time and can cancel the registration.
12. The ld Departmental Representative also drew our attention to the following paragraphs of the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (supra):—
"12.1 In paragraph 53 of the aforesaid decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench, it has been discussed the pattern of the receipts accounted by the assessee, shows that the revenue is generated from advertisement and special events like IPL matches, celebrity matches, etc. These are all commercial activities. Therefore, it is crystal clear that even though cricket matches are conducted by the assessee, they are not conducted in accordance with the objects.
12.2 In paragraph 54 of the aforesaid decision, it has been discussed that it is necessary for the purpose of section 2(15) that the objects are carried out not only in their physical aspect but also in their conceptual framework, so as to claim the benefit of registration under section 12AA. In the present case, the conceptual framework has not been followed.
12.3 In paragraph 55 of the above said decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench, it has been discussed that the DIT (Exemptions) has clearly stated that the activities of the association are not in the nature of activities for advancement of any object of general public utility. But the activities involve carrying on activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any other activity of rendering any service for a cess or fee. Therefore, it is clear that the first proviso inserted under section 2(15) hits the case of the assessee.
12.4 In paragraph 56 of the aforesaid decision, ITAT Chennai Bench has discussed that there cannot be a conflict between the first proviso inserted under section 2(15) and the conditions laid down in section 12AA(3) for cancelling the registration. If there is a conflict between the two, the law stated in the proviso will be defeated. So also, the law stated in section 12AA(3) will be defeated. Therefore, when the assessee is hit by the proviso to section 2(15), its consequential reflection is automatic on section 12AA(3), which prima facie establishes that the activities carried on by the assessee are not genuine, in as much as it is not for advancement of any object of public utility. The two conditions laid down in section 12AA(3) cannot be read and understood in disregard to the proviso to section 2(15)."
13. In the end, ld Departmental Representative concluded that the two conditions stated in section 12AA(3) have reference to the de facto nature of the activities carried on by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee-trust was given registration under section 12AA on the ground that it is a charitable institution in as much as it is engaged in the advancement of an object of general public utility in the form of developing and promoting the game of cricket in Tamilnadu and Puducherry. But, now it is seen that its activities are oriented towards generating income and revenue by converting the sport of cricket into a celebrated industry, which means, the present activities carried on by the assessee are not genuine, when compared to the objects stated at the time of getting registration under section 12AA of the Act.
14. In rejoinder, the ld counsel of the assessee also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiralal Bhagwati v. CIT[2000] 246 ITR 188 and contended that in this judgment it was held that once the registration under section 12A(a) of the Act is granted, the grant of benefit cannot be denied and the AO was not justified in refusing the benefits on the ground that the scheme is not for the benefit of public at large. He submitted that since 1989, the assessee-trust is carrying out the same activities where were held by the Department as charitable; and therefore by overnight, on the ground of IPL matches, it cannot be held that the same has become non-charitable.
15. The ld counsel of the assessee also pointed out that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be adopted. In support of this, reliance was placed on the following decisions:—
| a. | Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775/106 Taxman 166 (SC) | |
| b. | Orissa State Warehousing Corpn. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589/103 Taxman 623 (SC) | |
| c. | CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 541/226 ITR 625 (SC) | |
| d. | CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1992] 196 ITR 149/62 Taxman 471 (SC) | |
| e. | CIT v. Shahzada Nand & Sons [1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) | |
| f. | CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 (SC) | |
| g. | CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) | |
| h. | CIT v. Naga Hills Tea Co. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 236 (SC) | |
| i. | Controller of Estate Duty v. R. Kanakasabai [1973] 89 ITR 251 (SC) | |
| j. | CIT v. Madho Pd. Jatia [1976] 105 ITR 179 (SC). |
16. Rival submissions were considered. Admittedly, in the present case, the Registration has been cancelled by CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot on the basis of amended provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; therefore we are of the considered opinion that the action taken by the ld CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot does not fall within the permissible limits of Section 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. Similar view is taken by the Ahmedabad "A" Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Cricket Association (supra) and the ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. With regard to the judgment of ITAT, Chennai "B" Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Cricket Association (supra) and ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Mumbai Cricket Association (supra), as relied upon by the ld Departmental Representative; we are of the view that the same are distinguishable as rightly pointed out by the ld counsel of the assessee-trust. Recently, ITAT Chennai "B" Bench, in the case of Madras Motor Sports Club v. DIT (Exemptions) [2013] 141 ITD 1/30 taxmann.com 135, in almost identical facts restored the registration, which was cancelled by ld DIT (Exemptions), observing that the nature of objects of the assessee cannot fluctuate in tandem with the quantum of receipts mentioned in the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue raised by the CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot in the impugned order regarding the activities of the trust can be examined by the Assessing Officer in the appropriate proceedings and our decision is resting only on the basis of the findings given by the ld CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot in the impugned order which is not permissible keeping in view the limited power available to him u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it would be open for the Assessing Officer to consider all the issue raised in the impugned order, if so advised, in the course of assessing proceedings of relevant years.
17. In view of above discussion, we set aside the order of ld CIT, Rajkot-2, Rajkot u/s 12AA(3) of the Income-tax Act and restore the Registration granted to the assessee-trust u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust is allowed.
SB*In favour of assessee.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment