Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) further observed that the assessee instead of replying as to how the assessee fulfills conditions as stipulated u/s 12A, has been more harping on irrelevant and technical issues. The ld. Pr. CIT(central ) observed that first SCN was issued on 18.07.2017 and the assessee submitted reply on 01.08.2017, but no order was passed by previous incumbent who got transferred on 25.08.2017. Since, there was a change in incumbent , fresh SCN was issued on 20.12.2018. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) also observed that facts which are undisputedly admitted by the assessee in its own application filed with ITSC after the notices were issued u/s 153A, which are being used to decide the validity of registration u/s 12A . The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) further observed , without prejudice, that the assessee has gone upto Hon'ble High Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust Court challenging the validity of notices issued u/s 153A, but failed to succeed. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) further observed that issue of limitation of assessment u/s 153A cannot have any implication on deciding the question whether the assessee trust was carrying on its activities as per the objects of the trust for which it was granted registration. The ld. Pr. CIT( Central) further observed that the appeal filed by assessee before ld. CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee then filed second appeal with tribunal , and now the matter is set aside by tribunal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for passing fresh orders. It was observed by ld. Pr. CIT(Central) that tribunal has not held the order the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) in first round of litigation to be null and void, there is no merit on the issue raised by assessee on validity of search assessment u/s 153A, more so when these are not relevant for the purposes of these proceedings u/s 12AA which are independent. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) further observed that even if search assessment are held to be bad in law, still material which was collected during search or otherwise, could still be used for any other proceedings under the 1961 Act. The reference was drawn by ld. Pr. CIT(Central) to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Pratap Singh & Anr. v. Director of Enforcement & ors. (1985) 155 ITR 166(SC). The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) also rejected the contentions of the assessee that the admission of additional income by assessee before ITSC cannot be used in any other proceedings, as in the opinion of ld. Pr. CIT(Central) admission of additional income by assessee in an application filed before ITSC will bind the assessee and it cannot now retract from its own admission merely because its application before ITSC had abated, in the proceedings conducted for cancellation of registration u/s 12AA of the 1961 Act. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) also rejected the contentions of the assessee that source of receipts is not relevant and what is relevant is only utilization of receipts as contended by assessee before ld. Pr. CIT(Central). It was observed by ld. Pr. CIT(Central) that if sources are not to be seen , then provisions of Section 2(15) would be rendered otiose. It was observed that test of utilization would come into play only when the test of source is not under question. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) observed that the source of Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust unaccounted receipts under the garb of anonymous donations itself is under grave suspicion , as also genuineness of the activity during which such unaccounted cash was received. It was observed that manner of earning unaccounted receipts would lead to commercial profiteering , which is impermissible u/s 2(15). It was observed that if income was in violation of objects of the trust or any law or socially acceptable standards , such activity cannot remain as charitable per se . The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) referred to provisions of Section 2(15) of the 1961 Act. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) held that the these receipts are not recorded in the books of accounts nor the expenses out of such receipts are recorded in the books of accounts, and hence the argument of the assessee that the same were utilized for the objects of the assessee trust were rejected by ld. Pr. CIT(Central). It was held that such cash receipts which are not recorded in books of accounts cannot be said to be derived from property held under the trust or as per objects of the trust. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) further observed that the action of not recording the receipts in books of accounts cannot also be said to be an activity genuinely carried as per authorization under the trust deed. It was further observed by ld. Pr. CIT(Central) that test prescribed u/s 11 regarding application of such receipts/income to charitable purposes also fails in the case of assessee. It was observed that Section 11(1)(a) stipulates that 'to extent of such income applied to such purposes in India' and also 'to extent to which the income so accumulated or set apart is not in excess of 15% of the income from such property' , would impliedly require maintenance of accounts comprising of all receipts and expenses pertaining to the objects/purposes of the trust. It was observed that when receipts or expenses are not recorded in books of accounts maintained by assessee, the test of the income applied for such purposes and computation of limit of 15% of income for accumulation would also fail. Thus, it could not be said that the activities of the trust were carried genuinely as per the charitable objects of the trust deed. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) also rejected the contentions of the assessee that registration u/s 12A cannot be withdrawn retrospectively. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) observed that the facts admitted by assessee Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust in its SOF filed before ITSC indicates that the assessee-trust was receiving cash which was unaccounted for the period commencing from financial year 2006-07 relevant to ay: 2007-08 till ay:2014-15. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) held that cancellation of registration u/s 12AA(3) is to be given effect retrospectively from the date from which the assessee-trust was found to be violating conditions of 12A registration i.e. 01.04.2006. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) referred to Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Custom(Import) v. Dilip Kumar and Company (2018) 95 taxmann.com 327(SC), to hold that provisions of Section 12AA(3) is to be interpreted strictly.He also referred to decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Navodaya Education Trust v. UOI, w.p. no. 3468-

3472/2018. The decision of Bangalore-tribunal in the case of Vidya Sewa Sangathna v. CIT, Hubli 71 taxmann.com 152 was also referred by ld. Pr. CIT(Central) , to hold that registration granted u/s 12A can be cancelled with retrospective effect subject to specified conditions as specified in Section 12AA(3). The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) also referred to Hon'ble Supreme Court having admitted SLP in the case of PCIT v. JIS Foundation 257 Taxman 261 (SC). It was also observed by Ld. Pr. CIT(Central) that Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted SLP against decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Rama Education Society 259 Taxman 368(SC), wherein Hon'ble High Court had held that withdrawal of registration u/s 12AA(3) of the 1961 Act cannot be retrospective. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) further held that not only conditions for grant of registration u/s 12A were violated, but also that conditions of sub-clause (c) of clause(i) of 80G(5) and clause (ii) and (iv) of 80G(5) are also violated as the assessee had failed to maintain books of accounts in respect of so called cash donations, nor have produced any evidence of having issued any receipts for such donations and the funds of the assessee-trust have been transferred for purposes other than charitable purposes. The ld. Pr. CIT(Central) also observed that the assessee has obtained multiple PAN numbers and also had obtained multiple registration u/s 12AA of the 1961 Act. It was also observed that ld. CIT(E) has already Jeevan Jyoti Charitable Trust cancelled registration granted u/s 12AA of the 1961 Act, vide cancellation order dated 08.02.2019. Thus, the ld. Pr. CIT(Central) being satisfied held that the assessee-trust does not exist solely for charitable purposes and that the activities of the assessee trust were not being carried genuinely as per the charitable objects of the trust deed. Thus, the registration granted u/s 12A by ld. CIT, Allahabad order granting registration No. 1/98-99 dated 29.01.1999, was cancelled by ld. Pr. CIT(Central) w.e.f. from 01.04.2006 by invoking provisions of Section 12AA(3) of the 1961 Act, vide orders dated 29.03.2019 . Further ld. Pr. CIT(Central) was pleased to cancel registration granted u/s 80G(5) of the 1961, w.e.f. date when it was granted on 13.10.2009, vide orders dated 29.03.2019.

(emphasis supplied)

19. The third reason given by the Hon'ble AM is the allegation with regard to the diverting sale proceeds of assets of the trust for repayment of outstanding bank loans of the trustee's group concern and not utilizing the same for the betterment of charitable objects of trust. According to the Hon'ble AM these allegations are serious allegations and the onus was on the Assessee to bring on record cogent material in its defence.

20. On the question whether registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect, the Hon'ble AM was of the view that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(E) Vs. Batanagar Education and Research Trust, 129 Taxmann.com 30(SC). In that case the assessee trust enjoyed registration u/s.12A of the Act vide order dated 6.8.2010. Consequent to a Survey u/s133A of the Act by the revenue on 24.8.2015, it transpired that the trust did not carry out its activities in accordance with objects of the Trust. A show cause notice u/s.12AA(3) of the Act for cancellation of registration was issued by the CIT(E) dated 4.12.2015 and by an order dated 25.2.2016 the CIT(E) cancelled the registration granted to the trust w.e.f 1.4.2012. On appeal by the Assessee to the Tribunal against the said order, the Tribunal upheld the same. On appeal against the order of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reversed the order of the Tribunal. On further appeal by the Revenue to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order of the CIT(E) was upheld and the order of the High Court was reversed.

(emphasis supplied)

19. The third reason given by the Hon'ble AM is the allegation with regard to the diverting sale proceeds of assets of the trust for repayment of outstanding bank loans of the trustee's group concern and not utilizing the same for the betterment of charitable objects of trust. According to the Hon'ble AM these allegations are serious allegations and the onus was on the Assessee to bring on record cogent material in its defence.

20. On the question whether registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect, the Hon'ble AM was of the view that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(E) Vs. Batanagar Education and Research Trust, 129 Taxmann.com 30(SC). In that case the assessee trust enjoyed registration u/s.12A of the Act vide order dated 6.8.2010. Consequent to a Survey u/s133A of the Act by the revenue on 24.8.2015, it transpired that the trust did not carry out its activities in accordance with objects of the Trust. A show cause notice u/s.12AA(3) of the Act for cancellation of registration was issued by the CIT(E) dated 4.12.2015 and by an order dated 25.2.2016 the CIT(E) cancelled the registration granted to the trust w.e.f 1.4.2012. On appeal by the Assessee to the Tribunal against the said order, the Tribunal upheld the same. On appeal against the order of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reversed the order of the Tribunal. On further appeal by the Revenue to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order of the CIT(E) was upheld and the order of the High Court was reversed.