Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2.It is further averred that the petitioner firm filed income tax returns in respect of the assessment years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 on 25.10.2004, 25.10.2005, 31.10.2006 and 31.10.2007 respectively and after due verification, it was accepted by the Department. When that being the factual position, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, initiated action under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act and cancelled its registration vide his Order dated 30.12.2010 by holding that the petitioner firm is not doing charitable activities or 'medical relief' as claimed by them. Subsequently, the respondent took action against the petitioner firm with retrospective http://www.judis.nic.in effect and issued notices for the assessment years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and thereupon, the respondent has passed the impugned orders for the aforesaid years which is under challenge before this Court in W.P.Nos.12067 to 12070 of 2011. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that at the time of passing the reassessment proceedings, no opportunities were granted to the petitioner nor proper procedures were followed since the re-assessment proceedings would have to be initiated within four years from the end of the respective assessment year.

3.The respondent through their counter has stated that registration was granted to the petitioner's Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act on 09.10.1992 erroneously and it was not based on any facts or materials. According to them, the Trust is manufacturing ophthalmic products as per objects clause (e) of the Trust Deed and profits generated year after year. Only a small portion of the surplus generated from the above activity got applied for charitable activity by way of donations mostly to organisations, in which, the same trustees http://www.judis.nic.in were the founders. As nothing was performed in regard to the object clauses (a) to (d), which speaks about 'medical relief', it was concluded that the object clause (e) fails together with the other four objects and therefore the registration granted to the petitioner's Trust under Section 12(A) of the Income Tax Act was cancelled by an order dated 09.10.1992 which was challenged before the Tribunal and it was dismissed stating that where the assessee has not carried on any charitable activities but only a business and even if a part of that business income is applied for charitable purposes, still the assessee could not be treated as an institution entitled for the benefit of Section 11 of the Act. But, in the present case, the assessee has converted the incidental objects as the main objects of the assessee being that of carrying on for full fledged business and chosen not to carry on the proclaimed main objects of the charitable activities and thus justified the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner company. According to them, such power of cancellation of registration is inherent and flows from the authority of granting registration. Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act was amended only to provide clarity to the power of cancellation of the http://www.judis.nic.in authority concerned. Therefore, it was contended that the reopening of the assessment is in order and prays for the dismissal of the writ petitions.

13. The petitioner alleges that the assessment was proposed to be reopened on the only ground that the registration enjoyed by the petitioner stood cancelled by the order dated 30.12.2010 of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed subsequent to the amendment to Sec 12 AA (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act 2010 effective from 01.06.2010. Evidently, the impugned orders start with the preamble that the certificate of registration granted to the petitioner is cancelled by the Order passed by the Commissioner in C.No. 464/57/CIT-I/92-93 dt 30.12.2010. It is the contention of the petitioners that the amendment to the Sec 12 AA (3) introduced by the Finance Act, 2010 is prospective and therefore reopening assessments on the basis of the cancellation order dated 30.12.2010 of the Commissioner seriously prejudice their substantive interests and burden them with serious civil consequences. http://www.judis.nic.in They also pointed that allowing the assessing officer to reopen the assessments for the past period on the ground of cancellation of the registration will amount to the assessing officer assuming the powers of cancellation which even the granting authority did not have during the relevant period of time until the amendment to Section 12AA(3) with effect from 01.06.2010. They had also alleged denial of principles of natural justice.

18.On perusal of the case laws relied by the parties to these Writ Petitions, it is clear that the questions raised in these Writ petitions have become a matter res judicata and no more res integra owing to the various Judicial decisions. Folowing the amendments to Section 12AA(3) and the subsequent actions of the Department on Section 12AA Companies, numerous cases came to be filed before various judicial forums. The vires of the amended section also came to be challenged http://www.judis.nic.in and considered before the High Courts. The various questions raised in the litigations are settled by a series of pronouncements by various High Courts and later affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The pronouncements that answers the questions raised in these writ petitions are summarised in the succeeding paragraphs.