Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The learned D.R. has next contended that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not correctly appreciating the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of "CIT v. Kamla Town Trust" (supra) and held that the said decision is not applicable to the present case and that if interpreted correctly, which rather supports the case of the assessee that the A.O. will have to take the instruction as it exists in its actually amended form when these pressed into service for framing the assessment, even for the assessment year prior to the year in which the Articles of Association have been amended; that such interpretation of "Kamla Town Trust" (supra) was erroneous; that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had rather held that by virtue of the rectification of 1955, the new clause was substituted for the old one and (hat such rectification was operative only prospectively w.e.f. the date on which it was brought about; that the case of the assessee was not different; that there was no reason why the rectification/amendment in the Articles of Association of the present assessee to be taken retrospectively; that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that it was in the way of casual mistake had occurred in the original Trust Deed, that amendment therein was permissible, (hat in that case, the assessee trust did acquire the status of a trust wholly for charitable and religious purpose only after the amendment to the Trust Deed in May, 1988 and that whether such rectified Trust Deed was pressed into service before the Income lax Authorities in the assessment proceedings, concerning the relevant assessment year, (he Income lax Officer would have to intrepret such rectified instruction for finding out its correct legal effect; (hat this would not be applicable for assessment years previous to the year relevant to the year in which the amendment was made. It was further contended that the learned CIT(A) had erroneously mis placed the emphasis on the dale of issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to the assessee; that even if for the sake of argument, such dale is taken to be factor relevant to decide the applicability of the amended Articles of Association of the assessee to the years under consideration, the correct date of issuance of notification under Section 143(2) would be the date of issuance of original notice under Section 143(2), that the cases were originally taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act, within the time permissible under Section 143(2) of the Act.

14. The learned D.R. has further contended that the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that "Shakthi Charities" (supra) worked in favour of rather than against the assessee to the effect that in that case, the amendment was supposed to be made by the Court, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was incorporated under Companies Act, it's Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association were required to be registered before the Registrar of Companies and that the assessee had not attained its objects, but had only altered its rules to fulfill its objects. It has been urged that the issue of amendment of Articles of Association of Trust has been put at rest by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of "Sri Agastyar Trust v. C.I.T." 236 ITR 23 (SC), holding, inter alia, that when a chanty had been founded and trusts have been declared, the founder had no power to revoke or vary or add to the trusts; that if a valid and complete dedication had taken place, there would be no power left in the founder to revoke. The learned DM. has thus contended that the order of the learned CIT(A) in this regard is liable to be set-aside and that of the A.O. is entitled to be revived.

14. The assessee, on its part, has also filed written submissions. The learned Counsel for the assessee has made oral arguments as well. It has been submitted, supporting the impugned order, that since the assessee did not amend its objects, "Shakthi Charities" (supra) is not applicable; that since the trust was incorporated under the Companies Act, the jurisdiction for any alteration in the Articles of Association lies solely with the Registrar of Companies and not by any Court; that the assessee is eligible to make alteration in its Articles of Association. By virtue of Section 31 of the Companies Act; that the amendment in the Articles of Association of the assessee trust has to be considered with retrospective effect, since such amendment has been made specifically retrospectively applicable; that in "Jagdamba Charity Trust v. CIT" 128 ITR 377 (Delhi), in similar circumstances, the retrospectivity of the amendment was upheld; that the objectionable clause of the Articles of Association was not deleted by virtue of the amendment in question were never implemented and no dividend was ever declared; that, therefore, the years under consideration were in accordance with the amended Articles of Association; that (he amendments being fully retrospective, the A.O. could not hold (hat in the years under consideration, the assessee trust was down by the terms of old Articles of Association. The learned Counsel for the assessee has thus requested that the appeals of the department in this regard be dismissed.

16. Then, the learned CIT(A) has sought to uphold the alleged retrospectivity of the amendment of the Articles of Association of the assessee, holding that in keeping with "Kamla Town Trust" (supra), it was not open for the A.O to refuse to consider the rectified Articles of Association and to insist that the assessee should strict to the original Articles of Association. In this regard, first of all, in "Kamla Town Trust" (supra), it has been, inter alia, held that the A.O. will have to lake instrument as it exists in its actually amended form when it is pressed into service for framing the assessment concerning the relevant assessment year in the said rectified instrument holds the fields. It nowhere holds that an amendment which cannot be carried out retrospectively is also to be taken into consideration by the A.O. In the present case, the assessee has remained unable to make out a case with regard to the retrospectivity of the amendment in question. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has clearly mis-read "Kamla Town Trust" (supra).