Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (E) erred in appreciating the fact that in order to invoke provision of section 12AA (4) of IT Act 1961, even though conditions of provisions are not fulfilled i.e. the object of the trust are not charitable in nature and its activities are not carried out in accordance with the object of the trust.

4. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate the fact that in order to invoke section 12AA(4) of IT Act 1961, it is pre-condition for CIT(E) to prove that the activity of the trust are being carried out in manner that the provision of section 11 & 12 of IT Act 1961 do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of such trust or institution due to operation of sub-section (1) of section 13 of IT Act 1961.

5. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(E) was erred in cancellation of registration of the trust u/s 12A(ab) of IT Act 1961, even though objects of the trust are charitable in nature and are being carried out its activities as per the object of the trust.

6. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT (E) was erred in cancellation of the registration u/s 12AA (4) with retrospective effect from AY 2015-16.

10. He submitted With respect to ground No.3 that the ld. CIT(E) has failed to bring out that the objects of the trust are not charitable in nature and its activities are not carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust, the ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT(E) has raised this issue, he referred to the fact that trust has made few amendments from time to time which are with respect to the change in the trust deed and further amendments are made to explain the primary objects of the trust, which is education by extending the scope of operation. These amendments were only clarificatory in nature as original objects in the trust deed were general and covered range of charitable activities. He states that the trust is registered in 1999 w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and the provisions of section 12AA(ab) came into effect from 1.4.2018 and prior to that provisions of section 12AA did not stipulate any condition, other than the registration within the time period and filing of the audit reports. He therefore submitted that merely because of all these changes which are merely clarificatory, could not have resulted into cancellation of the registration of the trust. To support the argument, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paramount Charitable Trust, 103 taxmann.com 419 and also the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shanmugham Trust [2024] 165 taxmann.com 669.

21. With respect to ground No.5, he submitted that when the objects of the trust are charitable and activities are carried out as per objects of the trust, there cannot be any reason for the cancellation of the registration because section 13(1) of the Act applies to it. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of Krupanidhi Educational Trust v. DIT [2012] 27 taxmann.com 11 [Bang], Cancer Aid & Research Foundation v. DIT [2014] 34 ITR (T) 56 (Mum and several other judicial precedents. He submits that the provisions of section 12AA(4) are discretionary in nature as it used the word "may" which is similar to section 186 where the status of the firm can be withdrawn. It is the discretion of the ld. CIT(E) not to cancel the registration even in spite of the default of the assessee. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in 56 ITR 293 which is though in the context of provisions of section 186 of the Act, but equally applies to this case.