Commissioner of Income Tax V. Punjab Cricket Association, Mohali, Punjab

ITA/416/2010

AI Insights

The case revolves around the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax to cancel the registration of the Punjab Cricket Association under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had previously ruled that the Commissioner lacked the authority to cancel the registration retrospectively. The appellant, Commissioner of Income Tax, challenged this decision, arguing for the validity of the cancellation. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana examined the legal provisions and relevant amendments to the Income Tax Act, particularly focusing on the timing of the amendment to Section 12AA(3) and its implications on the powers of the Commissioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798379 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Scholar's Educational Society, The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. Young, Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ABHINAV NARANG; PARNIKA SINGLA; SIDHANT SURI
• Assessee Lawyers: AMANPREET SINGH
• Keywords: Income Tax Act; Jurisdiction; Section 12AA(3); Cancel registration
• Section: 12; 12AA(3)

Judgement Text

" 214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX M/S PUNJAB CRICKET ASSOCIATION, MOHALI, PUNJAB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE Present Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Senior Standing counsel for the appellant/Income Tax Department. Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, and Ms. Parnika Singla and Mr. Sidhant Suri, Advocates for the respondent. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “ 27.08.2009 passed that the authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration granted under Section 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by invoking powers under Section 12 2. We have carefully considered the submissions and also examined the applicability of the judgment ITA-21-2011 Scholar’s Educational Society, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA Date of Decision: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, CHANDIGARH V/s. PUNJAB CRICKET ASSOCIATION, MOHALI, PUNJAB. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Senior Standing counsel for the appellant/Income Tax Department. Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, and Ms. Parnika Singla and Mr. Sidhant Suri, Advocates for the respondent. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “ passed in an appeal by the appellant/revenue ority has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration granted under of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by invoking powers under Section 12-AA(3) of the Act. We have carefully considered the submissions and also examined the applicability of the judgment dated 08.05.2024 titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Scholar’s Educational Society, Barnala and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-416-2010(O&M) Date of Decision:12.08.2024 I, CHANDIGARH ...…...Appellant V/s. PUNJAB CRICKET ASSOCIATION, MOHALI, PUNJAB. ….....Respondent SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Senior Standing counsel for the appellant/Income Tax Department. Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, and Ms. Parnika Singla and Mr. Sidhant Suri, Advocates Learned counsel for the appellant/revenue vehemently argued and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “ITAT”), vide its order dated an appeal by the appellant/revenue, has erred in holding ority has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration granted under of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) AA(3) of the Act. We have carefully considered the submissions and also examined dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. Young and find that the issue raised by the Appellant ….....Respondent vehemently argued and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, vide its order dated holding ority has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration granted under of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) We have carefully considered the submissions and also examined in Young find that the issue raised by the Suresh Kumar 2024.08.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-416-2010 appellant/revenue after relying on Society vs Chief Commissioner of Income 594 and Pinegrove International Chairtable Trust others(2010) 327 ITR (P&H) available to the authorities to cancel the registration granted under Section 12AA(3) of the Act retrospectively “15. 16. we find that essentially the ITAT has held the order CIT cancelling the registration on 02.03.2010 to be without jurisdiction and without amendment was made in Section 12AA(3) of the Act by the Finance Act of 2010 empowering the Commissioner to cancel t registration granted under Section 12A of the Act where it reaches to a conclusion that the activities of the such trust are not genuine and not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution. The power was, therefore, not the day when the CIT cancelled the registration i.e. on 02.03.2010. 17. 18. of the present case as in the aforesaid case Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporati Limited’s case (supra), the registration under Section 12A of the Act dated 13.04.1991 by its 2010 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 /revenue stands finally adjudicated by this Court relying on the judgments passed in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Pinegrove International Chairtable Trust (2010) 327 ITR (P&H) whereby this Court has available to the authorities to cancel the registration granted under Section of the Act was only prospective and retrospectively. The relevant extract the order is reproduced as under “15. XXXX XXXX 16. While answering questions of law nos. 1, 3 and 4 (supra), we find that essentially the ITAT has held the order CIT cancelling the registration on 02.03.2010 to be without jurisdiction and without authority in law. It has stated so as the amendment was made in Section 12AA(3) of the Act by the Finance Act of 2010 empowering the Commissioner to cancel t registration granted under Section 12A of the Act where it reaches to a conclusion that the activities of the such trust are not genuine and not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution. The power was, therefore, not the day when the CIT cancelled the registration i.e. on 02.03.2010. 17. XXXX XXXX 18. Thus, we find that the facts were almost similar to the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid case Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporati Limited’s case (supra), the Commission had cancelled the registration under Section 12A of the Act dated 13.04.1991 by its stands finally adjudicated by this Court in the case (Supra) ments passed in the case of New Noble Educational Tax and another;(2022) 448 ITR Pinegrove International Chairtable Trust vs Union of India and whereby this Court has held that the power available to the authorities to cancel the registration granted under Section was only prospective and could not be applied . The relevant extract the order is reproduced as under:- While answering questions of law nos. 1, 3 and 4 (supra), we find that essentially the ITAT has held the order passed by the CIT cancelling the registration on 02.03.2010 to be without authority in law. It has stated so as the amendment was made in Section 12AA(3) of the Act by the Finance Act of 2010 empowering the Commissioner to cancel the registration granted under Section 12A of the Act where it reaches to a conclusion that the activities of the such trust are not genuine and not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution. The power was, therefore, not available as on the day when the CIT cancelled the registration i.e. on Thus, we find that the facts were almost similar to the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid case Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Commission had cancelled the registration under Section 12A of the Act dated 13.04.1991 by its (Supra) New Noble Educational ITR Union of India and held that the powers available to the authorities to cancel the registration granted under Section not be applied Suresh Kumar 2024.08.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-416-2010 order dated 29.04.2002 and on 29.04.2002 the Commissioner was not empowered to cancel such registration. In view th questions of law no. 1, 3 and 4 are answered in favour of the assessee on the basis of judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior (supra). 3. In view of the above, Assessee herein also Accordingly, 4. All pending applications accordingly. August 12, 2024 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2010 (O&M) Page 3 of 3 order dated 29.04.2002 and on 29.04.2002 the Commissioner was not empowered to cancel such registration. In view th questions of law no. 1, 3 and 4 are answered in favour of the assessee on the basis of judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior (supra).” In view of the above, we find that registration of the respondent herein also could not have been cancel Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. All pending applications filed in [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [SANJAY VASHISTH , 2024 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : order dated 29.04.2002 and on 29.04.2002 the Commissioner was not empowered to cancel such registration. In view thereof, the questions of law no. 1, 3 and 4 are answered in favour of the assessee on the basis of judgment in Commissioner of Income- we find that registration of the respondent have been cancelled retrospectively. filed in this case shall stand disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [SANJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No we find that registration of the respondent- ed retrospectively. stand disposed of Suresh Kumar 2024.08.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "