Ita/1/2013 Of Comnr.of Income Tax v. Soceity Of Geoscient

08. 09.01.2019 Heard Shri T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in ITA Nos.187 and 188/CTK/2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. 3. While considering the matter, the learned Tribunal, in the impugned order at para-7, has held as under: “7. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, we are inclined to hold that the assessee has been unjustifiably considered for rejection of renewal of registration under the provisions of u/s. 80(5)(vi) and the cancellation of registration already granted since 1990 has been revoked by the learned CIT on material not confronted to the assessed. We have perused the order of the learned CIT rejecting the registration u/s.12AA and we find that he has tried to consider the rejection by holding a view that the donations and contributions received by the assessee were from corporate bodies which resulted in holding of funds in Fixed Deposits and Bank account which in his view was contravening the provisions of Section 11. We are unable to satisfy ourselves to this proposition of the learned counsel CIT insofar as the learned CIT has not been able to link whether these activities could be carried out otherwise. The learned counsel for the assessee has been able to substantiate the work rendered by the Society since 1990 and more so that assessee was to continue with holding registration u/s. 80(5)(vi) but erroneously applied for renewal as it stood expired in the FY 2011 therefore prompted the learned CIT to cancel both the certificates of registration for the FY 2012 and 2013. We have been furnished with the details filed till the assessment AY 2011-12 which have been accepted by the Assessing Office. In this view of the matter, we are unable to consider the findings of the leaned CIT other than as filed before the assessing Officer. The learned CIT ought to have confined himself to satisfaction for the main objects being carried out by the Society for the general public utility without linking the same to consider the expenditures incurred contravening the provisions of Section 11. Furthermore the learned CIT appears to have considered business activities as being carried out because it involves corporate bodies is of avail. On our perusal of the orders, we do find that cancellation of registration u/s. 80(5)(vi) preceded the revocation of the registration u/s. 12AA which in itself indicates that the learned CIT proceeded to consider the case of the assessee exparte by noting that the society did not respond to the notices issued for addressing the issue as it came up after his cancellation of the application for renewal of registration u/s. 80(5)(vi). The learned counsel for the assessee has also submitted a copy of letter from the office of the DIT (Exemption), 3[rd] Floor, Ayakar Bhawaan, Laxmi Nagar Distt. Center, Delhi 110092 dt. 7.7.2010 addressed to the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries stating that the certificate is valid from 1[st]April, 2010 onwards till it is rescinded and subject to the same conditions and also subject to the condition that their case should not hit by the newly inserted provision to Section 2(15) of the Act. In other words, the learned CIT has tried to address rejecting the application for renewal u/s. 80(5)(v) by making efforts to revoke 12A registration already granted when the renewal for registration u/s. 80G(5)(vi) was not required as per the law itself. The revoking of registration u/s. 12AA therefore was unjustified, illegal and arbitrary insofar as the learned CIT has not brought on record any material that he was not satisfied about the genuinenity of the activities of the Trust or Society when the enquiries he made were available to the assessing Officer and has not found any of the objects of the trust or society as non-genuine insofar as it was not the assessee’s endeavour to get a SKJ cancelation of registration having applied afresh but on the basis of information available to the Department with the Assessing Officer who could not step into the shoes of the learned CIT to cancel registration by bringing on record the provisions of Section (1A) of Section 12AA which has been brought on into the statute as on 1.4.1999. In other words, on having perused the order of the learned CIT we are of the considered view that the finding of the learned CIT rather lean in favour of the Society to let it continue with the registration granted u/s. 12AA. Having said so, the renewal was required for Section 80(5)(vi) as well. Finding no infirmity in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, we quash the order passed by the lerned CIT registration u/s. 80(5)(vi) and u/s. 12AA by allowing the appeal of the assessee.” 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and considering the materials available on record, we are of the considered view that no substantial question of law is involved to entertain the appeal. Even otherwise, we do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal. 5. The appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. All connected Misc. Cases/I.As. are also disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. .…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice …………………..……… (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge