M/S.sri Vidya Mandir Trustsivaji Nagar, Ammapetsalem-636 003 v. The Commissioner Of Income Taxsalem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.12.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Tax Case (Appeal).No.674 of 2013 M/s.Sri Vidya Mandir TrustSivaji Nagar, AmmapetSalem-636 003 ...Appellant -vs- The Commissioner of Income TaxSalem ...Respondent Tax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai Bench 'D' dated 18.04.2013 in I.T.A.No.501/MDS/2010(C.No.9755(1)/SLM/1973-74 dated 25.02.2010 order u/s 12AA (3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax,Salem). For appellant : Mr.A.SatyaseelanFor respondent : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) This Tax Case (Appeal) by the assessee is directed against theorder passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'D'dated 18.04.2013 in I.T.A.No.501/MDS/2010. The assessee seeksadmission of the Tax Case (Appeal) on the following questions of law:"1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, theAppellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the respondentCommissioner has the authority u/s.12 AA(3) of the Income Tax Act tocancel the registration granted to the appellant trust u/s.12A of theIncome Tax Act during 1973. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the orderof the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order passed by theCommissioner cancelling the registration granted to the appellanttrust is sustainable and justifiable in law." 2. The assessee association was originally in the name and styleof "Sri Vidya Mandir". The facts which are necessary for thedisposal of this appeal are that the association by name Sri VidyaMandir Association was registered under the provisions of theSocieties Registration Act-Act No.21/1860 in S.No.267/1971 dated30.04.1971 on the file of the Registrar of Assurances, SalemDistrict. The object of the said association was to promote andadvance the educational, medical, social and moral welfare of thepeople in general; to establish, maintain and manage colleges,schools and other educational institutions and libraries for theadvancement of knowledge in any subject or language and to establish,maintain and manage any institution for imparting technical knowledgein any handicrafts or industries etc. Subsequently, the assesseeassociation was formed by a deed of trust dated 19.01.1972 registeredas Document No.328/1972. The objects of the assessee trust as couldbe seen from the trust deed was that "donors" were desirous ofsetting up of a "trust" with the properties mentioned in Schedule Ato D for the aim and purposes for which the Sri Vidya Mandir wasregistered under the Societies Registration Act 21/1860 asS.No.267/1971 and has been formed for the purpose of runningeducational institutions and other allied institutions mentioned indetail in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Sri VidyaMandir and also for the purpose of carrying out the object of SriVidya Mandir so as to enable the said Association to carry out itsobjects according to the direction and wishes of the trust. 3. The assessee trust viz., "Sri Vidya Mandir Trust", which wasformed in 1972, applied for registration under Section 12A(a) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter called as the "Act"). TheCommissioner, on being satisfied that the assessee is entitled forsuch registration, granted registration under the said provision.The Society viz.,"Sri Vidya Mandir", which was registered under theprovisions of the Societies Registration Act was converted into Trustcalled as "Sri Vidya Mandir Association" by a deed dated 07.09.1987.Certain members of the assessee trust were also the members of thenewly formed association. In terms of the registered trust deed ofSri Vidya Mandir Association dated 07.09.1987, wherever, the words"Sri Vidya Mandir Association" have occurred in Sri Vidya MandirTrust or in Sri Vidya Mandir Foundation or in Sri Vidya MandirAssociation registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of1860 with S.No.267 of 1971 or in any other context shall be known andfollowed and recognised as Sri Vidya Mandir Association registeredunder the Trust Deed dated 07.09.1987. That apart all the propertiesmovables and immovables assets and liabilities of the Associationregistered under the Societies Registration Act XII of 1860 with S.No.267 of 1860 shall vest in Sri Vidya Mandi Association,registered under the Trust deed dated 07.09.1987. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Salem) issued a notice dated09.09.2009 under Section 12AA(3) of the Act stating that there are noobject clauses seen from the trust deed dated 19.01.1972 and therecannot be a valid trust in the absence of the objects; in terms ofSection 6 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882, the Author of the Trust mustindicate with reasonable certainty the purpose of the trust. In viewof the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax proposed to cancel theregistration granted to the assessee trust under Section 12A of theAct and called upon the assessee to file its objections. Further itwas stated in the notice dated 09.09.2009 that the said notice may beread as notice under Section 12AA(3) of the Act and an opportunitywas given to the assessee to state their objections in writing or inperson on 05.11.2009. After affording an opportunity of personalhearing to the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Salem, byorder dated 25.02.2010, cancelled the registration granted earlierunder Section 12A of the Act. Aggrieved by such order, the assesseepreferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 5. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, after considering thecontentions raised by the assessee agreed with the findings recordedby the Commissioner of Income Tax and dismissed the appeal by orderdated 18.04.2013. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, theassessee is on Tax Case (Appeal) raising the above mentionedquestions of law. 5. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, after considering thecontentions raised by the assessee agreed with the findings recordedby the Commissioner of Income Tax and dismissed the appeal by orderdated 18.04.2013. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, theassessee is on Tax Case (Appeal) raising the above mentionedquestions of law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee referred to thetrust deed dated 19.01.1972 and the objects of the association, whichwas formed on 30.04.1971 as well as the terms and conditionsmentioned in the trust deed dated 07.09.1987. Learned counselsubmitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have seenthat the creation and functioning of Sri Vidya Mandir Association onand from 07.09.1987, with such objective is neither an unrecognisedone in law nor is prohibited or unlawful. It is further submittedthat the association formed on 30.04.1971 was registered under theSocieties Registration Act and is exclusively to aid and benefit thenamed beneficiary in the trust. The Memorandum and articles ofassociation of the 1971 association also provided that ondissolution, the assets and liabilities has to be transferred to anyinstitution with similar objective. Therefore, it is contended thatthe Tribunal erred in law in not recognising the transmission of thebeneficiary status of the 1971 association into the 1987 associationin law and erred in accepting and confirming the view of theCommissioner that there is no link between the 1972 trust and the1987 trust. Further, the learned counsel contended that theTribunal rendered an erroneous finding that there is no specificobject for the 1972 trust. Learned counsel, by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Director of Income-Tax (Exemptions) Vs.Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust reported in (2011) 339 ITR 0622submitted that the Commissioner had no power to cancel theregistration prior to the insertion of Sub-Section 3 to Section 12AAof the Act, which was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 witheffect from 01.10.2004. 7. Per contra, learned Standing counsel appearing for theRevenue, while supporting the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal as well as Commissioner of Income Tax submitted that theobjects of 1972 trust no longer survive and the Commissioner aftergoing through the entire facts rendered the finding. As regards thepower of the Commissioner of Income Tax to cancel the registration,which was granted to the 1972 Trust, it is submitted that before theBombay High Court, validity of Section 12AA(3) came to be questionedin the decision reported in (2012) 343 ITR (St) 23 (Bom.) (SINHAGADTECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ANDANOTHER), wherein, the Bombay High Court held that "parliament hasplenary powers as a legislative body to enact legislation either withretrospective or prospective effect subject only to the requirementthat such legislation should not offend the provisions of Part III ofthe Constitution. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the partiesand perused the materials placed on record. 9. The short question that falls for consideration in this TaxCase (Appeal) is whether the Commissioner is justified in cancellingthe registration granted to the appellant trust, which was executedon 19.01.1972 and if the cancellation was justified, on facts,whether the Commissioner could have invoked the power under SubSection 3 of Section 12AA of the Act, which came to be inserted on01.10.2004. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the partiesand perused the materials placed on record. 9. The short question that falls for consideration in this TaxCase (Appeal) is whether the Commissioner is justified in cancellingthe registration granted to the appellant trust, which was executedon 19.01.1972 and if the cancellation was justified, on facts,whether the Commissioner could have invoked the power under SubSection 3 of Section 12AA of the Act, which came to be inserted on01.10.2004. 10. The assessee, in their reply to the notice issued by theCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 12AA(3) of the Act pointedout that the main object of the trust viz., the assessee trust was toassist the association which was registered in 1971. It was furthercontended that the association, which was registered as a society in1971 was formed for the purpose of running educational institutionand as per the terms of the trust deed dated 19.01.1972, the trust isto utilise the properties and income earned, for carrying out theeducation and other allied objects stated in Memorandum and Articleof Association of Sri Vidya Mandir trust. Further, it was contendedthat it is no doubt that the association, which was formed in 1971has been running schools and colleges etc., and the sole purpose ofthe 1972 trust was to aid and help the association and therefore,there is no vagueness in the trust deed. 11. The Commissioner, after considering the contentions raised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the assessee pointed out that three documents have to be lookedinto viz., (i) the trust deed dated 19.01.1972, (ii)Memorandum &Articles of Association of the 1971 association/Society and (iii) theinstrument creating the new trust by trust deed dated 07.09.1987.After going through the documents and the objects for which the threeentities were established, it was rightly held by the Commissionerthat all the educational institutions, which were run by the 1971Society are being run by the 1987 Trust, after its registration; boththe entities are referred to as "The Association" in their respectivedocuments; all educational institutions came to be run by the 1987Trust and there is no mention of the object clauses of the 1987 trustin the instrument of 1972. In the light of the said fact, theCommissioner took note that the assessee trust does not have anyobjects and even the reference to objects of 1971association/society, which came into existence much prior to theassessee's association/trust. 12. The Commissioner further pointed our that after Sri VidyaMandir Association/trust was registered under the Trust Deed dated07.09.1987, the objects of the new trust was no different from theobjects of the 1971 Society; thus, the objects of the assessee trustunderwent change perforce with the intention of the Authors to do so.Thus, the Commissioner pointed out that each time, 1971 Society orthe 1987 Society alters the objects, the association created underSection 12A of the Act would automatically undergo a change. Theassessee was called upon by the Commissioner to state as to whatcontrol it exercises over the association, which has now became atrust on or after 09.09.1987. The assessee was not in a position toexplain as to whether the entire society was a newly formed trustunder 09.09.1987 and there was only a working relation between theassessee trust and the new association. 13. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal took note of the findingsrendered by the Commissioner that working relation that existedbetween the assessee trust and the 1971 association is no longeravailable due to the formation of the 1987 trust on 09.09.1987; thedeed of the assessee trust was executed in 1971 and therefore, therecannot be any reference of the new trust created on 09.09.1987;there is no link between the 1971 association and the newly formedtrust, which was formed in 1987 and if at all there is any linkbetween the 1972 trust and the association formed on or after09.09.1987, when the newly formed trust started administering theeducationalinstitutionsandotheractivitiesof1971Society/Association, the working relation ceased to exist.Therefore, the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was thatthe 1971 society has become functionally defunct and all itsactivities were taken over by the new trust; therefore, the Tribunalpointed out that there is no link between the assessee's 1971 trustand the newly formed trust and no link vice versa. 14. We have perused the documents viz., the Articles ofAssociation of 1971 Association/Society, the trust deed dated 1972and the trust deed dated 07.09.1987 and the findings recorded by theCommissioner and Tribunal on the factual aspects. 14. We have perused the documents viz., the Articles ofAssociation of 1971 Association/Society, the trust deed dated 1972and the trust deed dated 07.09.1987 and the findings recorded by theCommissioner and Tribunal on the factual aspects. 15. The next question that arises herein is as to whether theCommissioner had power to cancel the registration, which was grantedin 1972 by invoking power under Section 12AA(3) of the Act. In thecase of SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 343 ITR(St.) 23(Bom.), anotice was issued to the appellant therein under Sub Section 3 ofSection 12AA of the Act on the ground that they have been chargingcapitation fee and donation to the admissions in the educationalinstitution and therefore, the trustees personally gained from thosedonations and they ceased to carry on the activity in accordance withthe objects of the trust. The said show cause notice ultimatelyculminated in an order cancelling the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act and the order of the Commissioner was challengedbefore the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that theCommissioner was empowered to cancel the registration on specificgrounds. Further the Tribunal held that the section did not empowerthe Commissioner to cancel or withdraw the registration, which hasbeen granted under Section 12A of the Act. Further, the Tribunal heldthat provisions of Sub Section (3) of Section 12AA of the Act whichare brought on the statute book with effect from October 1, 2004, bythe Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, could not have retrospective effect,consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner was set aside.The Revenue filed appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.Following the amendment by the Finance Act of 2010 with effect fromJune 1, 2010, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued fresh noticeduring March 2011 proposing to invoke his powers under the amendedprovisions of Section 12AA(3) of the Act and to cancel registrationof the petitioner therein for the reasons mentioned in his orderdated 09.10.2007. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging theconstitutional validity of Sub-Section (3) of Section 12AA of theAct, as amended by the Finance Act of 2010 with effect from June 1,2010. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court while rejectingthe challenge to the newly introduced provision held as under:-" There is no merit in the challenge to theconstitutional validity of the provision. As a resultof the amendment, which has been brought about by theFinance Act of 2010, sub-section (3) of Section 12AAhas been amended specifically to empower theCommissioner to cancel a registration obtained underSection 12A, as it stood prior to its amendment by theFinance (No.2) Act, 1996. Sub-section (3) wasinserted into the provisions of Section 12AA by theFinance (No.2) Act, 2004, with effect from October 1,2004. As it originally stood, under sub-section (3),a power to cancel registration was conferred upon the Commissioner where a trust or an institution had beengranted registration under clause (b) of sub-section(1) of Section 12AA. The Commissioner, aftersatisfying himself that the objects of the trust or aninstitution are not genuine or are not being carriedout in accordance with the objects of the trust orinstitution, as the case may be, was vested with thepower to pass an order in writing cancelling theregistration of such trust or institution. By theFinance Act of 2010, sub-section (3) was amended so asto empower the Commissioner to cancel the registrationof a trust or an institution which has obtainedregistration at anytime under Section 12A (as it stoodbefore its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996).As a result of the amendment, a regulatory frameworkis now sought to be put in place so as to cover also atrust or an institution which has obtainedregistration under Section 12A as it stood prior toits amendment in 1996. Every statutory provisionwhich operates in respect of a trust, which hasalready been registered in the past does not have aretrospective character. A law which operates withrespect to an event which has occurred in the past isnot necessarily retrospective. A provision isretrospective when it takes away a right which hasvested or accrued in the past. The effect of theprovision is to empower the Commissioner to cancel theregistration of a trust where he is satisfied that theactivities of the trust are not genuine or are notbeing carried out in accordance with the objects ofthe trust or institution. This cannot by any stretchof imagination, be regarded as a retrospectivealteration of the law. In any event, Parliament hasplenary powers as a legislative body to enactlegislation either with retrospective or prospectiveeffect subject only to the requirement that suchlegislation should not offend the provisions of PartIII of the Constitution. Empowering the Commissionerto cancel the registration of a trust or institutionon the ground that the activities of the trust orinstitution are not genuine or are not being carriedout in accordance with the objects of the trust orinstitution cannot be construed as a conferment ofarbitrary power. Where a benefit is granted by theLegislature, whether by way of an exemption orotherwise, the Legislature is entitled to ensure thatthe benefit conferred by the statute is utilized onlyfor the purpose for which it is conferred. Aprovision enacted for the withdrawal of the benefitconferred for breach of the underlying purpose cannot be regarded as arbitrary. The power is carefullystructured by the requirements which are specified bythe Legislature in sub-section (3) includingobservance of the principles of natural justice. Acancellation of registration under sub-section (3) ofSection 12AA is subject to an appeal before theTribunal under Section 253(1)(c). A judicial remedyis available against a cancellation of registration." be regarded as arbitrary. The power is carefullystructured by the requirements which are specified bythe Legislature in sub-section (3) includingobservance of the principles of natural justice. Acancellation of registration under sub-section (3) ofSection 12AA is subject to an appeal before theTribunal under Section 253(1)(c). A judicial remedyis available against a cancellation of registration." 16. As pointed out by the Division Bench of the Bombay HighCourt, every statutory provision which operates in respect of atrust, which has already been registered in the past does not have aretrospective character; a law which operates with respect to anevent which has occurred in the past is not necessarilyretrospective; a provision is retrospective when it takes away aright which has vested or accrued in the past. Therefore, the BombayHigh Court pointed out that the effect of the provision is to cancelthe registration of the trust when the activities of the trust arenot genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with theobjects of the institution and such law cannot be regarded as aretrospective alteration of the law. It was further held thatcancellation of registration of a trust on the ground that theactivities of the trust or institution are not genuine or are notbeing carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust orinstitution cannot be construed as a conferment of arbitrary power tothe Commissioner. 17. We fully agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court.In the light of the same, the said amendment cannot be regarded asretrospective alteration of the law and the same cannot be consideredas giving arbitrary power to the Commissioner. 18. Learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance on thedecision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust reported in (2011)339 ITR 622. The Delhi High Court agreed with the view of theAllahabad High Court reported in (2011) 336 ITR 250 (All) in the caseof Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manav Vikas Avam Sewa Sansthan,which in turn placed reliance on the decision in the case of OxfordAcademy for Career Development Vs. Chief CIT reported in (2009) 315ITR 382 (All), where the Allahabad High Court relied on GeneralClauses Act, 1897, which held that the Commissioner's power underSection 12AA being a quasi-judicial power or not being one fallingunder the category of the 'orders' mentioned in Section 21 of theGeneral Clauses Act, 1897, the provisions of Section 12AA of the Actcancelling the registration could not have the effect of rescindingthe order originally granted to the trust under Section 12AA of theAct. Thus, the Delhi High Court agreed with the view taken by theAllahabad High Court reported in (2011) 336 ITR 250 (All) in the caseof Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manav Vikas Avam Sewa Sansthan, that the order cancelling the registration granted under Section 12Abeing quasi-judicial power does not fall under the category of"orders" mentioned under Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897,which provides that the power conferred on an authority empowered toissue orders including the power to rescind such orders however,would not confer jurisdiction of the Commissioner to rescind theorder thus passed granting registration. that the order cancelling the registration granted under Section 12Abeing quasi-judicial power does not fall under the category of"orders" mentioned under Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897,which provides that the power conferred on an authority empowered toissue orders including the power to rescind such orders however,would not confer jurisdiction of the Commissioner to rescind theorder thus passed granting registration. 19. We respectfully express our disagreement with the view takenby the Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax(Exemptions) Vs. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust reported in (2011) 339ITR 622 as well as Allahabad High Court reported in (2011) 336 ITR250 (All) in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Manav VikasAvam Sewa Sansthan. A reading of Section 12AA(3) of the Act revealsthat where the trust has been granted registration under Clause (b)of Sub Section (1) or has obtained registration at any time underSection 12A of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by theFinance (No.2) Act, 1996, and subsequently, the Commissioner issatisfied that the activities of the trust or institution are notgenuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objectsof the trust or institution as the case may be, he may pass an orderin writing cancelling the registration of such trust or institution. 20. As far as the present case is concerned, as is evident fromthe reading of the trust deed dated 19.01.1972, Shri Vidya MandirTrust was constituted for the aim and purpose for which Sri VidyaMandir registered under the Societies Registration Act was formedviz., for the purpose of running educational institution and otherallied educational institutions mentioned in articles and memorandumof association. 21. A reading of those documents further reveal that Schedule Ato D mentioned properties have been vested for the purpose ofcarrying out the object of Sri Vidya Mandir association, so as toenable the said Association to carry out its objects according to thedirection and wishes of the trust. 22. Admittedly, the said association has become a trust as earlyas 1987. A copy of the trust deed enclosed in the typed set ofpapers before us reveal that the constitution of the trust/societycease to exist and wherever the word Vidya Mandir Associationoccurred in Sri Vidya Mandir trust, it shall be known and followedand recognised as Sri Vidya Mandir Association registered as a trust.In other words, the association ceased to exist for all practicalpurposes and in which place, there is only a trust existing. Theassets and liabilities of the erstwhile association stood transferredto the newly constituted trust and the activities of the trust formedin 1987 are detailed therein. It is an admitted fact that after theconstitution of the trust in consonance with its terms, the 1972 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trust did not undergo any change to include the newly constitutedtrust as one of its objectives, thus, one and only object, which wasreferred to 1972 trust viz., administering the Vidya MandirAssociation and that having come to an end, it is difficult for thisCourt to accept the plea of the assessee that the trust continueseven today. It is no doubt true under Clause V of the trust deeddated 19.01.1972, if at any time, the object of the trust shouldbecome impossible of fulfillment, the properties and funds belongingto the trust shall be utilised for such other allied charitable oreducational purposes as the Board for the time being may determine.As of today, there are no materials to show that there were any suchnecessity and possession was taken as regards the constitution ofnewly formed trust. In any event, as observed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in their orders, wedo not find any specific objects manifested in the trust deed. Inthe circumstances, when the one and only object was, it had to runeducational institutions, to that end, the new trust was formed in1987, hence, we do not find any justifiable ground to hold that theCommissioner would be powerless even to cancel the registration ofthe trust granted to 1972 association under Section 12AA(3) of theAct. 23. The second emphasis in this regard is that the institutionor trust, who has obtained registration, at any time on or after theinsertion of Sub Section 3 of Section 12AA of the Act by the Finance(No.2) Act, 2004 also would come under the scanner of theCommissioner, that subsequently, if the Commissioner is satisfiedthat the activities of the trust or institution are not genuine orare not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trustor institution, as the case may be, he shall pass an order cancellingthe registration of such trust or institution. 24. As already pointed out in the preceding paragraph, when thetrust itself has worked out that the existence of the associationcame to an end after registration of the 1987 trust, when all itsassets and liabilities were transferred and all activities ceased andno other object explained in the trust deed even the reference toobject of another society, the Commissioner has however, authority todo away with the grant of registration as it stood prior to theamendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 as per newly insertedprovision in the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 effective on 01.10.2004.To deny such power would be contrary to the object of grant ofregistration under Section 12A of the Act. Since Sub Section (3) ofSection 12AA of the Act has to be strictly viewed and the authorityhas to deal with even those cases having registration granted to thetrust under the erstwhile provision, we have no hesitation inrejecting the assessee's case. 25. If we are to accept the contention of the assessee, it wouldamount to stating "once a trust always a trust". The intention of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 25. If we are to accept the contention of the assessee, it wouldamount to stating "once a trust always a trust". The intention of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Legislators being that even after grant of registration underSection 12A of the Act, if the Commissioner is satisfied that theactivities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are notbeing carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust orinstitution, as the case may be, he is entitled to pass orderscancelling the registration after granting opportunity. In thepresent case, the Commissioner of Income-tax found that 1971 societyhad not filed return of income which suggests that there were noactivities undertaken by the said 1971 Society/Association; furtherafter the new trust was formed in 1987 viz., "Sri Vidya MandirTrust", the 1971 Society does not have any objects and even if theSociety has any other objects, those objects ceased to exist afterregistration of the 1987 Trust, when all its assets and liabilitieswere transferred and all activities ceased. 26. For all the above reasons, the Tax Case (Appeal) standsdismissed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CS-V)Dated :04.02.2014//True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarnvsriTo1.The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench,Rajaji Bhavan, III Floor,Besant Nagar, Chennai - 90. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem. 1 CC to Mr.J.Narayanansamy, Senior Standing Counsel for Income TaxS.R.No.62747 1 CC to Mr.A.Satyaseelan, Advocate, S.R.No.62804 Tax Case (Appeal).No.674 of 2013JRG (CO)PSI (05/02/2014) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/