Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.During the course of hearing before us,Authorised Representative (AR) stated that Trust was granted registration u/s 12A(a) on 14.01.1976 on the basis of objects contained in the Trust-Deed, that an application for grant of 80G certificate was filed on 06.01.2009, that on 09.06.2004 sub- clause-5 was amended, that 80G exemption was granted in 2006, that hearing for cancelling the registration was held on 28th July 2009, that the DIT-E passed order on 12.09.2009, that the order was passed beyond the period of 6 months, that as per the provisions of Rule 11AA(6) DIT-E was not entitled to pass an order on the application of the certificate u/s 80G(5) of the Act after 6 months from the date on which the application was made, that the order was void ab-initio. He referred to decisions of Bhagwad Swarup Shri Shri Devraha Baba Memorial Shri Hari Parmarth Dham Trust (299 ITR 161 (Del Trib.-Special Bench),Sardari lal Oberai Memorial Charitable Trust (3 SOT 229).He further argued that the DIT-E had no jurisdiction to deal with the validity 3 ITA No. 6289/Mum/2009 Lala Lajpatrai Memorial Trust of the registration granted u/s.12A of the Act while passing the order u/s 80G(5) of the Act, that he could either grant or refuse the approval u/s.80G of the Act, that he could not cancel the registration already granted u/s 12A of the Act. He referred to the orders/decisions of H.P. Govt. Energy Development Authority (7-taxmann.com-69)Shri Lalita Ashram Trust(39 SOT324). AR contended that DIT-E could not withdraw registration granted u/s 12A of the Act by applying the provisions of section 12AA(3) of the Act, that the amendment in section 12AA(3) in respect of Trust registered u/s.12A of the Act was amended from 01.06.2010, that the order cancelling registration was passed in 2009,that provisions of section 12AA(3) could be applied only in specified circumstances, that both the conditions mentioned in section 12AA(3) were not satisfied,that he had issued 80G certificate on 30.10.2006 for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03. 2009,that there was no change in the facts of the assesses case after 01.04.2006. Departmental Representative (DR) stated that amendment to the trust-deed came to the notice of the DIT-E only in 2009, that provisions of section 12A were rightly applied, that principles of res-judicata did not apply to the income-tax.She relied upon the decision of Board of Control for Cricket in India(22 Taxmann.com 29) and Karimangalam Onriya Pengal Semipu Amaipu Ltd. (32 Taxmann. com

292).

4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material.Undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee-trust had made an application before the DIT-E for issuing certificate u/s.80G of the Act,that the DIT-E cancelled the registration of the Trust invoking the provisions of section 12 AA of the Act and the assessee was also not issued certificate u/s.80G of the Act,that the DIT-E was of the opinion that amendment to trust deed disentitled the assessee for making application for 80G purposes,that the trust deed was amended in 2004,that in 2006 the assessee was granted 80G certificate, that the application made by the assessee as per the provisions of 80G of the Act was decided after a period of six months.In the cases of Bhagwad Swarup Shri Shri Devraha Baba Memorial Shri Hari Parmarth Dham Trust (supra)it has been held by the Special Bench that if the order is passed after a period of six months,it is not a valid order passed u/s.80G of the Act.Provisions Rule 11(A)6 of the Income-tax Rules,1962(Rules)are clear and same envisage that application for registration u/s.80G of the Act should be disposed off with in the stipulate time frame.The words used in the Rule are mandatory in nature.We find that facts and circumstances of the year 2006 and year 2009 were same.If registration was granted u/s.80G on earlier occasion, then do refuse the registration on subsequent occasion the DIT-E should have brought something material on record.Rule of consistency is one of the recognised rule of tax jurisprudence.It is said that decision on an issue or question taken in earlier years though not binding should be followed and not ignored unless there are good and sufficient reasons to take a different view. Said principle is based upon rules of certainty and consistency that a decision taken after due application of mind should be followed consistently as this lead to certainty, unless there are valid and good reasons for deviating and not accepting earlier decision. We find that in the order of the DIT-E no valid or good reasons have been mentioned for refusing registration u/s.80G of the Act.Therefore,we are of the opinion that refusal by the DIT-E in granting registration for special deduction was not valid. Ground no.1 is decided in favour of the assessee-trust.