Appell v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana Ii And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR Y ANA & by 44-472017.03.24 11:10CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 236 of 2015 (O&M).Date of decision: 16.03.2017 M/s The Improvement Trust Malerkotla ...---Appell Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana II and another ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICK RAMENDRA JAINHON’BLE MR. JUSTICK RAMENDRA JAIN Present: | Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1,This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 236 of 2015 and 47 of2016 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involvedin both the appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extractedfrom ITA No. 236 of 2015. ? After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay infiling/retilling both the appeals is condoned. onThe following substantial questions of law have been claimedby the appellant-assessee in ITA No. 236 of 2015 filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) against the orderdated 27.03.2014, Annexure A.3, passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, “the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 380/CHD/2013, for the assessment year 2009-10:- — “(i)Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of thepresent case, the respondent could have cancelled theregistration already granted to the trust when no conditionunder Section 12AA (3) of the Act had been satisfied? (141) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of thepresent case, the respondent could have cancelled theregistration without recording any specific finding that theactivities of the trust of institution are not genuine?” (411) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of thepresent case, after the grant of registration under Section 12Aof the Act can the Assessing Officer go into the objects andhold them to be non-charitable. If not whether the learnedTribunal was justified to hold that the activities done by theappellant trust do not qualify for exemption?” (iv) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of thepresent case, the impugned orders are liable to be set asidethat on one hand it is observed that the case laws relied by the CIT were relating to granting registration under Section 12Aof the Act and not relating to the exemption provided underSections 11 and 12 of the Act and on the other hand thelearned ITAT has itself heavily placed reliance on thejudgment ofPUDA Ws. CIT‘which was relating to the grant|of registration under Section 12A of the Act making itcontradictory? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theaction of the authorities below, the impugned ordersAnnexure A2 and A3 are legally sustainable in the eyes oflaw? 4 A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in ITA No. 236 of 2015 may be noticed. Theappellant-assessee is a trust situated at Malerkota in the State of Punjab. Itwas granted registration under Section 12A of the Act, vide order dated16.01.2009, Annexure A.|l. The said registration was withdrawn videorder dated 12.02.2013, Annexure A.2 on the ground that the assesseetrust was not charitable in nature within the meaning of Proviso to Section2(15) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-assessee filedan appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 27.03.2014, AnnexureA.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, the instant appeals by theappellant-assessee. 4 A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in ITA No. 236 of 2015 may be noticed. Theappellant-assessee is a trust situated at Malerkota in the State of Punjab. Itwas granted registration under Section 12A of the Act, vide order dated16.01.2009, Annexure A.|l. The said registration was withdrawn videorder dated 12.02.2013, Annexure A.2 on the ground that the assesseetrust was not charitable in nature within the meaning of Proviso to Section2(15) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-assessee filedan appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 27.03.2014, AnnexureA.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, the instant appeals by theappellant-assessee. 5]We have heard learned counsel for the parties.6]Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that theTribunal while deciding the issue against the appellant, had relied upon itsOwn decision in the case ofImprovement Trust Bathinda Vs. CITBathindaITA No. 366/(Asr)/2012 dated 18.12.2012It was against the|said decision that ITA No. 24 of 2014 |Improvement Trust Dr. Mela RamRoad, Bathinda through its Chairman Shri Varinder Kumar Sharma,IAS Vs. The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle [, Bathindawas filed in this Court. On 06.08.2014, this Court disposed of a bunch of 8appeals including ITA No. 24 of 2014 by passing order in ITA No. 100 of2014, wherein the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to adjudicate theissue regarding the nature of activities of the appellant trust whether theywere in the nature of charitable within the meaning of Section 2(15) of theAct in respect of the assessment years in question or not. The operativepara of the order reads thus:- Ti “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion,the matter requires to be remitted to the Tribunal toadjudicate the issue regarding the nature of activities of theappellant trust whether they are in the nature of charitablewithin the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act in respect ofassessment years in question or not, keeping in view thearguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and to pass fresh orders relating to assessmentproceedings thereafter in accordance with law.” In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in both the appeals are set aside and the matter is remanded tothe Tribunal to decide the same afresh in the light of the submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the parties, after affording an opportunityof hearing to the parties in accordance with law. Needless to say, anythingobserved hereinbefore shall not be taken to be an expression of opinion onthe merits of the controversy. Sincere efforts shall be made to decide thematter expeditiously. As a result, both the appeals stand disposed of. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge March 16,2017 Whether speaking/reasonedWhether reportable (Ramendra Jain) JudgeYes/No.Yes/No |