DERA SACHA SAUDA,SIRSA V. PCIT(CENTRAL),GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 21/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Dera Sacha Sauda, a charitable trust, which appealed against the cancellation of its registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act by the PCIT, Gurgaon. The registration was initially granted on December 13, 2004, but was cancelled effective April 1, 2016, based on findings from a special audit and subsequent proceedings. The trust contested the cancellation, arguing that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration and that the cancellation was based on incorrect facts and without proper consideration of the submissions made by the trust. The ITAT examined the jurisdictional authority of the PCIT and the applicability of Section 12AB(4) and found in favor of the trust, leading to the quashing of the cancellation order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298517 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Aggarwal Vidhya Pracharni Sabha Vs PCIT, Heart Foundation of India vs. CIT (Central), Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research Society vs. PCIT (Central), Wholesale Cloth Merchants Association vs PCIT (Central), M/s. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bangalore vs. PCIT(Central), Laskhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs PCIT (Central-3), CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society, NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., CIT vs. Sam Global Securities, Siksha vs. CIT, Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, Dilip Tanaji Kashid vs. Pr. CIT & ANR., Rentworks India (P) Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT & ANR., Noorul Islam Educational Trust vs. CIT AND Ors, Ajantha Industries & Ors. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Revenue expenditure; Retrospective amendment; Corroborative evidences; Gift; Capital expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure; Competent authority; Charitable institution; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 148; 143(3); 143(2); 12AA; 132; 153A; 22; 12A; 13; 153C; 12; 142(2A); 133A; 10B; 10(23C); 13(2); 20

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च\u0010डीगढ़ \u0014यायपीठ, च\u0010डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 21/CHD/2024 (Under Section 12AA ) M/s Dera Sacha Sauda, Shah Satnam Ji Dham, Shah Satnam Ji Marg, Sirsa. Vs The PCIT (Central), Gurgaon. थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAATD8359H अपीलाथ\u0012/Appellant \u0013\u0014यथ\u0012/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and Shri Saksham Aggarwal, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT,DR Date of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Gurgaon (in short ‘the PCIT’) dated 27.12.2023 vide which registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act dated 13.12.2004 has been cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2016 by invoking the provisions of Section 12AB(4) of the Act. ITA No.21/CHD/2024 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust M/s Dera Sacha Sauda is a Trust/Society created for charitable purposes and it was registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 13.12.2004. The case of the Trust was selected for scrutiny under CASS for assessment year 2018-19 and accordingly, assessment proceedings were initiated by Faceless Assessment Unit via e-proceedings by issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. It emerges out that case was referred to FT&TR Wing during the course of assessment proceedings and accordingly, it was centralized with DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh in view of relevant circulars/guidelines of the CBDT by passing an order under Section 127 dated 30.01.2023. It also emerges out that thereafter, case of the assessee Trust was referred to Special Audit in view of the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Act. Such reference was made after obtaining prior approval from Pr. CIT Central, Gurgaon. The Special Auditor has submitted his report and he pointed out some adverse inference as well as various irregularities in terms of Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act. The AO, thereafter made a reference as per second proviso of Section ITA No.21/CHD/2024 3 143(3) to Pr. CIT for withdrawal of registration granted to the assessee under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. This reference was made on 24.03.2023. The ld. PCIT has gone through the details pointed out by the DCIT, Central Circle and issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.12.2023 inviting explanation of the assessee as to why its registration under Section 12AA granted vide order dated 13.12.2024 be not cancelled by exercising the powers under Section 12AB(4) of the Act. 2.1 It emerges out that assessee has filed detailed replies. Those have been considered by the ld. PCIT, Central Circle, and he passed the impugned order on 27.12.2023. The ld. PCIT has cancelled the registration of the assessee. The last paragraph of the impugned order read as under : “9. In view of the forgoing discussions, I am satisfied that the assessee trust i.e. M/s Dera Sacha Sauda has committed specified violation in terms of clause (a), (b), (c) & (e)(ii) of Explanation to Section 12AB(4) 'of the Act. Therefore, the registration granted u/s 12AA vide order dated 13.12.2004 is hereby cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2016 by invoking the provisions of Section 12AB(4) of the Act.” 2.2 While impugning the order of the Pr. CIT dated 27.12.2023, assessee has taken 11 grounds alongwith sub- grounds. It also filed an application for permission to raise ITA No.21/CHD/2024 4 additional grounds of appeal. We take note of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee which read as under : 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2004 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions of the appellant and evidences placed on record and merely on surmises and conjectures and also without observing principles of natural justice. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 3. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 12AB and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) inter-alia for the reason that the reference made by Ld. AO under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) to Ld. PCIT dated 24.03.2023 is barred by limitation and is bad-in-law, illegal, void-ab-initio and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 12AB and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) inter-alia for the reason that the reference made by Ld. AO under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) to Ld. PCIT dated 24.03.2023 is bad-in-law, illegal, void-ab-initio and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to facts and circumstance of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 12AB and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) inter-alia for the reason that the reference made by Ld. AO under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) to Ld. PCIT has been made without a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of such reference so made which is mandatory as per CBDT circular no. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. 6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT in assuming jurisdiction u/s 12AB and in passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) without valid legal jurisdiction is bad-in-law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 7. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA that too with retrospective effect from 01.04.2016 is patently illegal, bad-in-law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.21/CHD/2024 5 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act by inter-alia alleging that assessee has committed following specified violation in terms of clause (a), (b), (c) and (e)(ii) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions of the appellant and evidences placed on record and merely on surmises and conjectures and also without observing principles of natural justice: a. That property 'Tera Vas' and a property at Greater Kailash is allegedly being used for benefit of the author/sewaadar and thus, assessee trust has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (c) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. b. That assessee has allegedly contravened the provisions of section 13(l)(c) and thus, allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (a) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. c. That assessee has purchased vehicles allegedly for personal use of the author of the trust and has allegedly contravened the provisions of section 13(2) and thus, allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (c) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. d. That land acquired by the assessee for cultivation purposes is allegedly not as per the object of the trust and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (b) of Explanation to section 12AB(A) of the Act. e. That assessee has allegedly diverted its canteen receipts to M/s Pure Departmental Store, alleged specified person u/s 13(3), and thus, allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (a) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. f. That separate books of accounts have not been maintained as per the provisions of section 11 (4 A) and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (c) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. g. That assessee has extended its activates outside India without approval is a contravention of section 1 1 of the Act thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (e)(ii) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. h. That assessee has gifted an immovable property to M/s Shah Satnamji Research & Development Foundation which has the same management/control as of assessee trust and therefore, allegedly, indirect benefit has been given to alleged specified entity and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (a) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. i. That operative of Dairy Farm and sale/purchase of livestock is not as per the object of the assessee trust and also no separate books of account have been made and thus, assessee has allegedly ITA No.21/CHD/2024 6 committed specified violation in terms of clause (b) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. j. That expenditure incurred in criminal proceedings of the patron of the trust is clear violation of the objects of the trust and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (c) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. k. That assessee is allegedly engaged in construction activities which is not incidental to the attainment of the its objects and further, no separate books of accounts have been maintained w.r.t to these construction activities and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (b) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. 9. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT in holding that assessee has committed specified violation in terms of clause (a), (b), (c) and (e)(ii) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act is bad-in-law, and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 10. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. POT in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act vide order dated 13A2.2004 and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) dated 27-12- 2023 is illegal, bad in law, void ab-initio and against the facts and circumstances of the case and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and barred by limitation also. 11. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2.3 Apart from the above grounds, the assessee sought permission to raise two additional grounds of appeal, namely; \"1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference made by Ld. AO under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) to Ld. PCIT(Central) for passing order u/s 12AB(4) is bad in law inter-alia for the reason that the valid jurisdiction for passing the order u/s 12AB(4) lies with CIT(Exemptions) Chandigarh and not with Ld. PCIT(Central). 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. P CIT (Central) in assuming jurisdiction u/s 12AB and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) is without a valid jurisdiction and is bad- in law.” ITA No.21/CHD/2024 7 2.4 In support of its application for raising above grounds of appeal, it relied upon the following judgements : i) CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society, (2017) 397 ITR 0344 (SC). NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC). ii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., (2016) 389 ITR 0326 (P&H). iii) CIT vs. Sam Global Securities, (2014) 360 ITR 0682 (Del.). iv) Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa). v) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, (1992) 194 ITR 0548 (Bom.). 3. Since both the additional grounds of appeal are jurisdictional grounds of appeal, which goes to the root of cause of action, the adjudication of these grounds would affect ultimate taxability of the assessee, we have heard both the parties on these preliminary issues. We are of the opinion that the assessee’s stand to agitate under these additional grounds of appeal are such which goes to basic issues vide which it is to be decided whether ld. PCIT, Central Circle was having jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or not. Similarly, whether the ld. PCIT, Central Circle could have invoked Section 12AB(4) with retrospective effect or not ? Considering their cumulative effect over sustainability of the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to admit both these additional grounds of appeal for decision on merit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC ITA No.21/CHD/2024 8 Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 has propounded that if no discovery of new facts is required and issues taken up for the first time before an Appellate Authority goes to the root of the cause which will ultimately affect the taxability of an assessee, then assessee could be permitted to raise additional ground of appeal. Respectfully following the judgements relied upon by the assessee, we allow the application and permit the assessee to raise additional grounds of appeal. 3.1 It is pertinent to observe that in both the additional grounds of appeal, jurisdictional issues have been raised by the assessee therefore, before adverting to other issues pleaded in original grounds of appeal, we deem it appropriate to take these two grounds of appeal first for adjudication. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the very out submitted that assessee is a charitable Trust/Society. It was registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 13.12.2004. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has basically raised two fold of submissions on these additional grounds of appeal. In his first fold of ITA No.21/CHD/2024 9 submission, it was contended that Section 120 of the Income Tax Act empowers the CBDT to authorize the authority for exercising the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on an assignment to such authorities. In other words, Board will notify which authority will perform which work. He took us through Section 120 of the Income Tax Act and thereafter submitted that grant of registration as well as cancellation has been assigned by the Board to CIT (Exemptions). He drew our attention towards Notification No. 52 and 53 of 2014 issued on 22.10.2014. We will be taking cognizance of these Notifications while taking note of the order of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Aggarwal Vidhya Pracharni Sabha Vs PCIT (ITA No. 1308/Del/2023) decided on 08.01.2024 whose copy has been made available in the Paper Book on page No. 1 to 40. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal took note of these Notifications and we will be referring these Notifications. On the strength of Section 120 coupled with the Notification issued by the Board, ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasized that CIT (Exemptions) was the competent authority to cancel the registration granted under Section 12A. The powers exercised by the ITA No.21/CHD/2024 10 PCIT in the present case is beyond his jurisdiction and therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. For buttressing his contention, he relied upon following orders of the ITAT whose copies have been placed on the record : 1. Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha vs PCIT, ITA No. 1308 /DEL/2023 dated 08.01.2024 (ITAT Del.) 2. Heart Foundation of India vs. CIT (Central), ITA 1524/Mum/2023 dated 27.07.2023 (ITAT Mum.) 3. Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research Society vs. PCIT (Central) ITA 04-05/Jodh/2020 dated 25.01.2023, (ITAT Jodh.) 4. Wholesale Cloth Merchants Association vs PCIT (Central), ITA688/JP/2019 dated 06.01.2021 (ITAT Jaipur) 5. M/s. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bangalore vs. PCIT(Central), ITA No.l41/Bang/2024 dated 16.04.2024 (ITAT Bang.) 6. Laskhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs PCIT (Central-3) ITA 1803/Del/2024 dated 22.08.2024. 5. In his next fold of contentions, he submitted that ld. PCIT has cancelled the registration with the aid of Section 12AB(4) whereby new grounds have been assigned for empowering the authority to cancel the registration. If those contentions are present in a particular case, whether on the basis of these reasoning, a registration could be cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2016. In other words, the additional reasoning provided under Section 12AB was brought on the Statute Book w.e.f. 01.04.2022. Can with the help of these reasoning, registration be cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2016. In other words, whether this provision is applicable with ITA No.21/CHD/2024 11 retrospective effect or not. He submitted that ITAT, Bangalore and Cuttack has considered this aspect and unanimously held that the provision is not applicable with retrospective effect. He further relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isthmian Steamship Lines (1951) 20 ITR 572(S.C.) and CIT Vs Vatika Township367 ITR 466 (S.C.) dated 14.09.2014. He submitted that at different places, PCIT has exercised the powers for withdrawing registration granted to an assessee and all the Benches of ITAT are unanimous on that point that PCIT is not the competent authority to withdraw such registration. It can only be by CIT (Exemptions) as contemplated in the Notification issued by the CBDT under Section 120 of the Income Tax Act. He placed on record copies of the ITAT orders, Delhi, Mumbai, Jodhpur, Jaipur, Bangalore Benches. Similarly, ITAT Bangalore and Cuttack has held that provision of Section 12AB sub-section (4) is not applicable with retrospective effect. Thus, according to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee on these preliminary issues. ITA No.21/CHD/2024 12 6. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR drew our attention towards Section 143 sub-section (3) of the Income Tax Act. On the strength of this, it has been contended by the ld. CIT DR that second proviso to Section 143(3) empowers the AO to make a reference to the PCIT. Since in the hierarchy of the authorities, AO is subordinate to PCIT while assessing the income of the assessee. Therefore, it is but natural that reference would be made to PCIT as provided in the second proviso to Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Apart from his oral submission, he has filed a written note after conclusion of the hearing and such note read as under : “The aforementioned case came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Bench on 05.03.2025. 2. The appellant assessee has taken an additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT in cancelling the registration u/s 12AA. The appellant has contended that it is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)- CIT(E) - and not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - (PCIT), who was the competent authority to cancel the registration. The appellant also submitted copies of few judgments of the Hon'ble ITAT Benches in support of his contentions, including the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Delhi in the case of Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs. PCIT, Cen- 3, New Delhi in ITA No. 1803/Del/2024 pronounced on 22.08.2024. 3. In this regard, it is submitted that from the plain reading of the text of sections 12AB(4) and second Proviso to section 143(3), it is abundantly clear that the intent of the legislature was to provide the powers of cancellation of registration u/s 12AA to both the CIT(E) as well as the PCIT. This is because the words 'Principal Commissioner of Income Tax' have been used in marked distinction to the words 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)' in both the sections. It is pertinent to mention here that the scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for only the Commissioner rank officers to hold the charge of Exemptions. The Income Tax Act, 1961 nowhere provides for a Principal Commissioner rank officer to hold the charge of Exemptions. This would ITA No.21/CHD/2024 13 evidently imply that other than the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), the legislature in its wisdom has decided to endow other officers also - viz Principal Commissioners of Income Tax, who are higher in rank to the Commissioner (Exemptions) and are not holding the charge of Exemptions with the authority to cancel the registration under Section 12AA of the Act. 4. In support of the above contentions, the undersigned is relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society Vs. PCIT - 149 taxmann.com 227 (copy enclosed). The registration cancelled by the Ld. PCIT has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bench in the said case. 5. In the latest judgment dated 02.04.2025 of the Hon'ble ITAT Dehradun Bench, New Delhi rendered in the case of M/s Sri Krishan Educational Trust Vs. DGIT (Inv) - ITA No. 4092/DDN/2015 (copy enclosed), the Hon'ble Bench has categorically observed vide para 4 of the judgment that the prescribed authority for granting the approval or cancelling the approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). It shall be pertinent to mention here that although the said judgment has been rendered in the context of section 10(23C)(vi), but by drawing a parallel analogy, the intention of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench is extendable to the provisions of the registration u/s 12AA as well. This is because the schemes of sections 10(23C)(vi) and 12AA are the same and the words used in section 10(23C)(vi) are the same as in section 12AB(4), i.e. both the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) are competent to cancel the registration under both the respective sections when a reference is received from the assessing officer under second Proviso to section 143(3) of the Act. The text and the content of the 15th proviso to section 10(23C) is the same as that of section 12 AB(4). To augment my contention, the relevant 15th Proviso of section 10(23C)(vi) is reproduced below: \"Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (via) is approved or provisionally approved under the said clause and subsequently - (a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence of one or more specified violations during any previous year'; or (b) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has received a reference from the Assessing Officer under the second proviso to sub- section (3) of section 143 for any previous year; or………..\" 6. Furthermore, the judgment rendered in the case of Sri Krishan Educational Trust (supra) is the latest judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, New ITA No.21/CHD/2024 14 Delhi and shall prevail over the earlier judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi which have been relied upon by the appellant assessee. It will also not be out of place to state that the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs. PCIT, Cen-3, New Delhi, so heavily relied upon by the assessee, has been challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (screenshot attached as evidence). 7. Thus, when there are contradictory decisions of the coordinate Benches of the Hon'ble ITAT on the impugned issue, it shall be prudent to await the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Even otherwise, the latter decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi shall prevail over the earlier decisions rendered by the coordinate Benches of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi as already argued above. 8. It is therefore, humbly submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the PCIT in cancelling the registration u/s 12 AA, is without any basis and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.” 6.1 He made reliance upon two orders of the ITAT namely, Sinhgad Technical Education Society Vs PCIT 149 taxmann.com 227 and M/s Sri Krishan Educational Trust Vs DG of Income Tax (Investigation) Lucknow (ITA 4092/DDN/2015). Copies of both these decisions have been placed on record by the ld. CIT DR. 7. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 120 has a direct bearing on the controversy, therefore, we deem it appropriate to take note of this Section which read as under : “Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities. 120. (1) Income-tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as the Board may issue for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of those authorities. ITA No.21/CHD/2024 15 Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any income-tax authority, being an authority higher in rank, may, if so directed by the Board, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the income- tax authority lower in rank and any such direction issued by the Board shall be deemed to be a direction issued under sub-section (1). (2) The directions of the Board under sub-section (1) may authorise any other income-tax authority to issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of the other income- tax authorities who are subordinate to it. (3) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board or other income-tax authority authorised by it may have regard to any one or more of the following criteria, namely :— (a) territorial area; (b) persons or classes of persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,— (a) authorise any Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (b) empower the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer by or 471 of 801 under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases, shall be exercised or performed by an Additional Commissioner or an Additional Director or a Joint Commissioner or a Joint Director, and, where any order is made under this clause, references in any other provision of this Act, or in any rule made thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director by whom the powers and functions are to be exercised or performed under such order, and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of the Joint Commissioner shall not apply. (5) The directions and orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) may, wherever considered necessary or appropriate for the proper management of the work, require two or more Assessing Officers (whether or not of the same class) to exercise and perform, concurrently, the powers and ITA No.21/CHD/2024 16 functions in respect of any area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases; and, where such powers and functions are exercised and performed concurrently by the Assessing Officers of different classes, any authority lower in rank amongst them shall exercise the powers and perform the functions as any higher authority amongst them may direct, and, further, references in any other provision of this Act or in any rule made thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such higher authority and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of any such authority shall not apply. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any direction or order issued under this section, or in section 124, the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that for the purpose of furnishing of the return of income or the doing of any other act or thing under this Act or any rule made thereunder by any person or class of persons, the income-tax authority exercising and performing the powers and functions in relation to the said person or class of persons shall be such authority as may be specified in the notification.” 8. A perusal of sub-clause (1) to (3) would indicate that Board would issue directions authorizing the authorities to exercise the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on them by way of that Notification. While issuing Notification, Board would keep in mind four criteria mentioned in sub-clause (3) of this Section. In other words, the authorities under the Income Tax Act would exercise powers according to the jurisdiction vested in them by the CBDT. In exercise of this power, Board has issued Notification No. 52 and 53 of 2014 whereby Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Chandigarh was authorized to grant registration under Section 12AA as well as cancel such registration. The identical issue was considered by ITAT ITA No.21/CHD/2024 17 Delhi Bench in the case of Aggarwal Vidhya Pracharni Sabha Vs PCIT, ITA 1308/Del/2023. Copy of this decision is available on page No. 1 to 40. In this case also, PCIT, Central, Gurgaon has exercised the powers under Section 12AB sub-section (4) and cancelled the registration granted to the assessee under Section 12AA. The Tribunal has considered all attendant circumstances and thereafter held that PCIT, Central Circle, Gurgaon was not competent to cancel the registration. The ITAT took into consideration Notification No. 52 and 53 as well as the order passed under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Notifications dated 22.10.2014 are being taken note in paragraph No. 12 page No.17 to 21 of this order of the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal has also considered whether Section 12AB(4) brought on the Statute Book w.e.f. 01.04.2022 could be applied with retrospective effect. Both these issues have been examined by the Tribunal exhaustively. The Tribunal also took into consideration orders of other Co-ordinate Benches. We take note of the discussion made by the Tribunal on these issues which read as under : “9. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the submissions, it comes up that the admitted case of the Revenue is that there ITA No.21/CHD/2024 18 was no specific order under any provisions of the Act other than the order dated 26.10.2020 passed u/s 127 of the Act centralizing the case of M/s Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha consequent to a search and seizure action u/s 11 ITA No. 1308/Del/2023 132(1) of the Act to vest Ld. PCIT, Gurgaon the powers to pass the impugned order. The ld. DR has relied on the Explanation attached to section 127 of the Act to submit that the word, ‘case’ has been defined for the purpose of section 127 and consequent to the centralization of the assessment, the ld.PCIT, Gurgaon had got powers to commence proceedings u/s 12AB(4) of the Act for cancellation of registration of the assessee. 9.1 In this context, the ld. counsel for the assessee has heavily relied on the CBDT Notification No.52/2014 made available at page 2 to 6 of the paper book submitting that in regard to powers u/ss 11 and 12 of the Act, the CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh had specific jurisdiction and which could not have been transferred. Relying on the order u/s 127 of 26.10.2020, it was submitted that the order specifically mentions the transfer of case for carrying out post search investigation and meaningful assessment and not for any other purpose like cancellation of the registration. 10. Now to decide the question of valid exercise of jurisdiction by ld.PCIT, Gurgaon, it will be first relevant to reproduce the section 127 of the Act as follows:- “Power to transfer cases. 127. (1) The Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order; (b) where the Principal Directors General or Directors General or Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners or Principal Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or ITA No.21/CHD/2024 19 any such Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers are situated in the same city, locality or place. (4) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the re- issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation.—In section 120 and this section, the word \"case\", in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued there under, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year. 10.1 Further, we consider it appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of Section 12AB and relevant part Rule 17A as under:- “Section 12AB; \"12AB. Procedure for fresh registration.—(1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of an application made under clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, shall,— (a) where the application is made under sub-clause (i) of the said clause, pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years; (b) where the application is made under sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) or subclause (iv) or sub-clause (v) of the said clause,— (i) call for such documents or information from the trust or institution or make such inquiries as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about— (A) the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution; and (B) the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects; and (ii) after satisfying himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities under item (A), and compliance of the requirements under item (B), of sub-clause (i),— (A) pass an order in writing registering the trust or institution for a period of five years; (B) if he is not so satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a ITA No.21/CHD/2024 20 reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c) where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period of three years from the assessment year from which the registration is sought, and send a copy of such order to the trust or institution. (2) All applications, pending before the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on which no order has been passed under clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 12AA before the date on which this section has come into force, shall be deemed to be an application made under sub-clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A on that date. (3) The order under clause (a), sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) and clause (c), of sub-section (1) shall be passed, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, before expiry of the period of three months, six months and one month, respectively, calculated from the end of the month in which the application was received. (4) Where registration of a trust or an institution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) and subsequently, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution, as the case may be, he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such trust or institution after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (5) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (4), where registration of a trust or an institution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) and subsequently, it is noticed that— (a) the activities of the trust or the institution are being carried out in a manner that the provisions of sections 11 and 12 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; or (b) the trust or institution has not complied with the requirement of any other law, as referred to in item (B) of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1), and the order, direction or decree, by whatever name called, holding that such noncompliance has occurred, has either not been disputed or has attained finality, then, the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may, by an order in writing, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, cancel the registration of such trust or institution.\". Rule 17A “(5) On receipt of an application in Form No. 10A, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, authorised by the Board shall pass an order in writing granting registration under clause (a), or clause (c), of sub-section (1) of section 12AB read with sub-section (3) of the said section in Form No. 10AC and issue a sixteen digit alphanumeric Unique Registration Number (URN) to the applicants making application as per clause (i) of the sub-rule (1). (6) If, at any point of time, it is noticed that Form No. 10A has not been duly ITA No.21/CHD/2024 21 filled in by not providing, fully or partly, or by providing false or incorrect information or documents required to be provided under sub-rule (1) or (2) or by not complying with the requirements of sub-rule (3) or (4), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as referred to in subrule (5), after giving an opportunity of being heard, may cancel the registration in Form No. 10AC and Unique Registration Number (URN), issued under sub-rule (5), and such registration or such Unique Registration Number (URN) shall be deemed to have never been granted or issued. (7) In case of an application made under sub-clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of 4 [section 12A as it stood immediately before its amendment vide the Finance Act, 2023,] during previous year beginning on 1st day of April, 2021, the provisional registration shall be effective from the assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2022. (8) In case of an application made in Form No. 10AB under clause (ii) of the sub-rule (1), the order of registration or rejection or cancellation of registration under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AB shall be in Form No. 10AD and in case if the registration is granted, sixteen digit alphanumeric number Unique Registration Number (URN) shall be issued by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner referred to in of sub-section (1) of section 12AB. (9) The Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) or the Director General of Income-tax (Systems), as the case may be, shall: (i) lay down the form, data structure, standards and procedure of ,- (a) furnishing and verification of Form No. 10A or 10AB ,as the case may be; (b) passing the order under clause (a), sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) and clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 12AB. (ii) be responsible for formulating and implementing appropriate security, archival and retrieval policies in relation to the said application made or order so passed as the case may be.] 11. Further, it will be appropriate to reproduce the order u/s 127(2) dated 26.10.2020 available at page No.1 of the paper book:- “ Order u/s 127 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Consequent to the search & seizure operations u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in Dev Wines Group (D.O.S 19.02.2020), the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurugram vide letter F.No. Pr.CIT(C)/GGM/Cent./Dev Wines/2020-21/969 dated 24.08.2020 has been given concurrence and requested for centralization of the following cases related M/s Dev Wines Group to DCIT, Central Circle2, Faridabad for coordinated post search investigation & meaningful assessment. Accordingly, in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under all other powers enabling me in this behalf, I, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Chandigarh hereby transfer the following case(s), particulars of which are mentioned hereunder in Columns (2) and (3) from the Assessing Officer mentioned in Column (4) therein, to the of the Assessing Officer mentioned in Column (5) – ITA No.21/CHD/2024 22 Sr.S. No. Name and Address of the Assessee PA N From To 1 ` 1 (2) (3) (4) (5) M/s Aggarwal vidhya Pracharni Sabha (Aggarwal College, Ballabhgarh) AABTA34 09Q Circle-2(E), Chandigarh DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad DLC-CC-136-4 This order shall take effect from 26.10.2020.” 12. We also consider it appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the Notification dated 22.10.2014 providing for the territorial jurisdiction of CIT(E) in furtherance of powers given to the Board u/s 120 (1) and (2) of the Act, made available at pages 2 to 5 of the paper book:- “NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 22nd October, 2014 (Income-Tax) S.O. 2754 (E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (2) of section 120 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.880(E), dated the 14th September, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub section (ii), dated the 14th September, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby – ITA No.21/CHD/2024 23 ITA No.21/CHD/2024 24 ITA No.21/CHD/2024 25 2. This notification shall come into force with effect from the 15th day of November, 2014. [Notification No. 52 /2014/F. No. 187 /38 /2014 (ITA.I)] DEEPSHIKHA SHARMA, Director” 12.1 A reference was made by Ld. AR about the circular no 11 of 2022 dated 3rd June 2022, giving clarification regarding Form no 10 AC till the date of this circular and it will be relevant to reproduce para 1 of this circular herebelow; “Circular No. 11 of 2022 F. No.370142/4/2021-TPL Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes (TPL Division) Dated: 3rd June, 2022 Sub: Clarification regarding Form No 10AC issued till the date of this Circular - reg. Finance Act, 2022 has inserted sub-section (4) in section 12AB of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) allowing the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax to examine if there is any “specified violation” by the trust or institution registered or provisionally registered under the relevant clauses of sub-section (1) of section 12AB or subsection (1) of section 12AA. Subsequent to examination by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Incometax, an order is required to be passed for either cancellation of the registration or refusal to cancel the registration. Similar provisions have also been introduced in clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act by substituting the 21 ITA No. 1308/Del/2023 fifteenth proviso of the said clause with respect to fund or institution trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred under sub-clauses (iv), (v), (vi), (via) of this clause and which have been approved or provisionally approved under the second proviso to the said clause. These amendments are effective from 1st April, 2022. In addition to the specified violations referred above, the power of cancellation has also been granted under sub-rule (5) of rule 17A and subrule (5) of rule 2C of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ( the Rules) to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board. This Circular only relates to cancellation of registration/approval or provisional registration/approval in the case of “specified violation”. 13. Now, as we go through the impugned order passed u/s 12AB(4) of the Act, the ld. PCIT mentions that consequent to the completion of assessment proceedings, certain facts were communicated to his office by the AO pertaining to AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 vide his letter dated 23.08.2022. This letter dated 23.08.2022 has been reproduced at page No.32 of the impugned order and it shows that this letter was issued in supersession of earlier letter dated 11.04.2022. Further, the subject of the letter is as follows:- “Sub: Proposal for cancellation of registration granted u/s 12AA/12AB of the ITA No.21/CHD/2024 26 Act as per provisions of Section 12AB(4) of the Act in the case of ‘Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha’ ” – Reg. 13.1 Then what comes up is that the ld. PCIT has made out a case that the powers he had exercised u/s 12AB(4) are by virtue of clause (a) to sub-section (4) of section 12AB on the basis of ‘noticing’ occurrence of specified violation. The ld. PCIT has considered himself to be empowered by virtue of Explanation attached to 22 ITA No. 1308/Del/2023 section 127, defining ‘case’, to commence proceedings under this Act u/s 12AB(4) after the order dated u/s 127 dated 16.10.2020. 14. Having considered the aforesaid, it comes up that the order of transfer u/s 127 dated 26.10.2020 is shown to be passed under sub-clause (a) to sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Act which gave powers to CIT(E) Chandigarh to pass order of transfer qua such ‘Assessing Officers’ who are subordinate to other the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Thus when we consider the definition of “Assessing officer” u/s 2(7A) of the Act, certainly PCIT, Gurgaon, who has passed the impugned order is not an ‘assessing officer’, and order passed dated 26.10.2020, under sub-clause (a) to sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Act only referred to transfer of jurisdiction of ‘assessing officer’ subordinate to CIT(E) Chandigarh to DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad DLC-CC136-4 as assessing officer and not original jurisdiction of CIT(E) Chandigarh with regard to the subject matter as stands vested by order of CBDT dated 22/10/2014. 14.1 Further, what is material is that by the Notification dated 22.10.2014 the Board, exercising powers under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 120 vested powers to perform all the functions in respect of class of cases referred in the column No.5 of the Schedule of this Notification and had created a specific 23 ITA No. 1308/Del/2023 jurisdiction on territorial basis in regard to the provisions generally dealing with claim of exemptions u/ss 10,11,12, 13A and section 13B of the Act. 14.2 Thus as we refer to the Notification dated 22.10.2014, the clause (a) vested powers with Commissioners of Income-tax (Exemptions), for class or class of cases pertaining to section 10, section 11, section 12, section 13A and section 13B of the Act and clause (b), to issue orders in writing for the exercise of ‘their’ powers and perform all ‘their’ functions by Additional Commissioners of Incometax or Joint Commissioners of Income-tax and Tax Recovery Officers who are subordinate to them and that signifies that again this delegation of powers by CIT(E), Chandigarh could have been qua officers subordinate to CIT(E), Chandigarh only and not, in any way, gave powers to CIT(E), Chandigarh to pass an order u/s 127(2)(b) of the Act to transfer powers vested by Board to any other Tax Authority. 14.3 Next, as we refer to Section 12 AB and Rule 17A which have come into effect from 01.04.2021, and read it with the Circular no. 11 dated 3rd june 2022, it comes up that section 12AB(2) of the Act provides that the pending applications under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA before the date on which section 12AB came into force shall be deemed to be applications made under sub- 24 clause (4) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A on that date for grant of registration. 14.4 However, as far as provision of cancellation of the registration provided by sub-section (4) of section 12AA is concerned, sub-section (4) of section 12AB brings into place a completely new self-contained procedural code for conducting inquiry ITA No.21/CHD/2024 27 about ‘specified violations’, cancelling registration or refusing to cancel registration. 14.5 The Rule 17A, as clarified by Circular dated 3rd June 2022 provides that in addition to the ‘specified violations’, the power of cancellation has also been granted under sub-rule (5) of rule 17A and sub-rule (5) of rule 2C of the Income tax Rules, 1962 to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board. The authorisation u/s 12AB or Rule 17A if have to be construed, by virtue of Board’s Notification dated 22.10.2014, then we pointed out during the hearing, to ld. DR that this Notification dated 22.10.2014 does not mention specifically that the powers which can be exercised by ld. PCIT u/s 12AB(4) of the Act and which have come into effect from 01.04.2021 would also be exercised by virtue of this Notification dated 22.10.2014 or that further jurisdiction u/s 12AB of the Act could be transferred to other authorities as per this Notification. The query was left unsatisfied and no other Notification or Circular was brought to our notice. 15. Thus, at one end, in the absence of any specific reference of section 12AB in the Notification dated 22.10.2014 or there being subsequent authorisation by any Circular or Notification of the Board, we conclude that at the time of passing the order u/s 127 of the Act on 26.10.2020, CIT(E), Chandigarh did not have powers to as such transfer his jurisdiction u/s 127(2)(a) of the Act, for the purpose of Section 12AB has come into effect from 01.04.2021. Accordingly, under no circumstance while passing order u/s 127 of the Act on 26.10.2020, CIT(E), Chandigarh could have transferred his powers u/s 12AB of the Act to any other authority. 15.1 On the other hand, ld. PCIT, Gurgaon by virtue of the Explanation defining the scope of ‘case’ for the purpose of section 127, did not have power vested in him to cancel registration u/s 12AB(4). The ‘case’ refers to assessment initiated as a consequence of search or consequential proceedings to such assessments only and cannot be extended to special powers of ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh. Thus, the assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of the order dated 26.10.2020 of CIT(E), Chandigarh is completely illegal and that makes the whole exercise of ld. PCIT passing the impugned order liable to be quashed. 16. Furthermore, if examine the legality of the procedure followed by ld.PCIT, Gurgaon to pass order u/s 12AB(4), by recourse to exercise of powers by virtue of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB, it comes up that ld.PCIT, Gurgaon admits that a ‘proposal’ for cancellation of the registration of the assessee trust granted u/s 12AA of the Act was forwarded vide letter dated 23.08.2022 by the AO through the Range head. In this context, if we refer to second proviso to subsection (3) of section 143 of the Act, the same provides that if the AO is satisfied about any specified violation provided in sub-section (4) of section 12AB, the AO shall send a ‘reference’ to the PCIT or Commissioner to withdraw the approval or registration, as the case may be, and clause (b) to this proviso provides that no order making an assessment of total income or loss of such institution or trust shall be made without giving effect to the order passed by PCIT or Commissioner. In the case in hand, the ld.PCIT, Gurgaon has reproduced the part of letter dated 23.08.2022 which has observed about a ‘proposal’ of cancellation of registration u/s 12AB(4) and based upon the same, the ld. PCIT had initiated action. The assessment by said assessing officer was completed in September, 2021, so, before the letter dated 23.08.2022 the assessment proceedings stood culminated. Thus, there was no occasion for concerned AO to invoke ‘reference’ powers under second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Act. To that extent Ld. PCIT observations are correct. ITA No.21/CHD/2024 28 16.1 However, what is relevant here is that in any case the ‘reference’ by jurisdictional AO was to be made not to the PCIT or Commissioner, to whom this AO was subordinate but one authorised by board for the purpose of Section 12AB. The one who could grant or cancel the registration as per amended provisions which is not PCIT, Gurgaon, but, would be CIT(E), Chandigarh. Thus assumption of jurisdiction for cancellation of registration u/s 12AB(4) of the Act by virtue of aforesaid transfer of jurisdiction order u/s 127 of the Act is not conceivable. 17. At the same as we observed above that the assessment by said assessing officer was completed in September, 2021, thus, there was no occasion for concerned AO to invoke ‘reference’ powers under second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Act. It appears that when confronted with the situation that the second proviso of section 143(3) having come into effect from 01.04.2022 is not applicable to the assessment initiated consequent to search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act carried out on 19.02.2020, the ld. PCIT, Gurgaon improved his case by claiming that he had exercised his powers by virtue of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB, which entitles a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to take cognizance on the basis of a ‘specified violation’ coming into his notice during any previous year. At the cost of repetition, we observe that reference in section 12AB is not to PCIT or Commissioner to whom the said Assessing Officer would be subordinate, but, the CIT(E) who has been given special power for grant and cancellation of the registration as original jurisdiction. 17.1 Furthermore, here in this case, the exercise of power u/s 12AB(4) of the Act seems to also not have been done in accordance with law. As what comes up further is that, if at all, PCIT, Gurgaon was acting under clause (a) to Section 12AB(4), then, before issuing the notice dated 08.09.2022, itself the ld. PCIT, Gurgaon should have first formed his opinion that the assessee had committed one or more of a ‘specified violation'. However, as we go through the relevant part of the impugned order we find that the ld.PCIT has not mentioned as to which amongst the various specified violations mentioned in Explanation attached to subsection (4) of section 12AB were attracted so as to show cause the assessee under sub-section (4) of section 12AB of the Act and ask for information by notice dated notice dated 08.09.2022. 17.2 Rather, in the opening paragraph at page 34 of the impugned order, the ld. PCIT mentions, “it was noticed that the assessee trust has committed one or more specified violation. Thereafter, information was called for from the assessee trust by this letter dated 08.09.2022.” We are of the view that when Ld. PCIT was assuming jurisdiction under clause (a) to Section 12AB(4), then while calling for the documents or information under clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 12AB, the assessee should be notified as to for which of the ‘specified violation’ the Ld. PCIT is calling for the information or documents. The same is not coming from the impugned order that before issue of notice on 08/09/2022, calling for the documents or information under clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 12AB, Ld. PCIT, Gurgaon had actually ‘noticed’ one or more of such ‘specified violation.’ 17.3 In this context further if the final show cause notice dated 14.03.2023 available at pages 7 to 37 of the paper book is considered, it shows in para 4.10 a reference is made to what sort of information was called by letter dated 08.09.2022:- “4.10 In the light of above facts of the case, it appears that the assessee trust has made specified violation in terms of explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As such, following information from the assessee trust ITA No.21/CHD/2024 29 was called for under Section 12AB of the Act vide this office letter dated 08.09.2022 to examine the activities of the Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha with a view to ascertain whether the same are covered under the clause of explanation to the provisions of Section 12AB(4) of the Act and other provisions of the Act. Details of information called for the relevant period i.e. AY 2014-15 to 2020-21 is as under: • Copy of registration u/s 12AA/12AB(1) of the Act. • Copy of memorandum of association containing the objects for which the Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha was set up along with copy of registration with the relevant authorities. • Details of capital expenditure and revenue expenditure incurred for various A.Ys. as mentioned above. • Copies of Form 10 and Form 10B in respect of funds accumulated u/s 11(1)(a), 11(2) of the Act and year wise utilization of the same. • Specify the activities of which the accumulated funds have been utilized. • Copy of account of the Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha with M/s Tirupati Realbuild Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Radhey Krishna Infratech Pvt. Ltd. For the above AYs explaining the nature and purpose of transactions undertaken with the said entities including advance given for the purpose of construction along with supporting evidences in order to substantiate the genuineness of the same. • Relationship of the Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha and its members with the directors of M/s Tirupati Realbuild Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Radhey Krishna Infratech Pvt. Ltd.” 17.4 Then in para 4.1.2 sub-clause (d), the ld. PCIT mentions of the earlier letter dated 08.09.2022 that: “d) Further, vide this office letter dated 08.09.2022, the assessee was requested to furnish details of capital and revenue expenditure incurred for various assessment years. In response, the assessee only submitted copy of Form 10B which is not supported with the details of capital expenditure and copy of accounts and documentary evidence. Further, no activity was specified for which accumulated funds were utilized.” 18. Thus it appears that by this notice dated 14.03.2023, only the assessee for the first time was asked to show cause about the ‘specified violation’ of the nature reproduced below:- \"(a) where any income derived from property held under trust, wholly or in part for charitable or religious purposes, has been applied, other than for the objects of the trust or institution;\" 19. Thus, if it was the case of the PCIT (Central), Gurgaon that he was exercising the powers u/s 12AB(4)(a) on his own cognizance of the ‘specified violation’, then, at first instance as he was not competent authority u/s 12AB(1) to 31 ITA No. 1308/Del/2023 pass an order of registration of the Trust, then, he had no powers u/s 12AB(4) to call for to show cause an order of cancellation. In any case, the manner of exercise of jurisdiction without first making conclusive notice of the alleged ‘specified violation’ is not sustainable. ITA No.21/CHD/2024 30 20. We have also taken into consideration the order of the Jaipur Bench of the in the case M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Jaipur in ITA No.688/JP/2019 where this issue of jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Act has been considered and the findings support out aforesaid view on the facts before us. It will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant paras No.14 and 15:- “14. We found that the above facts and proceedings of power of transfer U/s 127 was only for a limited purpose of Co-Ordinate Assessment. Neither any search & Seizure action nor any notice u/s 153A or 153C of the Act or assessment u/s 153A or 153C of the Act in the case of assessee were initiated and there was only a survey u/s 133A of the Act in the case of assessee. The assessment has been completed u/s 148/143(3) of the act vide order dated 19.12.2018. As the assessment has been completed, the purpose of transfer u/s 127A has also been completed. Although No notices regarding the transfer of the cases u/s 127 have been sent to the assessee for the purpose of Co-ordinate assessment and the purpose of transfer was only Co-Ordinate Assessment as clearly mentioned in the transfer letter 19.08.2016. The assessment was completed u/s 148 r.w.s 143(3) 19.12.2018 and the proposal was sent to the Pr. CIT(C ) which has been received on 31.12.2018 in the office of Pr. CIT(C) on 23.01.2019 after a lapse of more than one month. 15. Even otherwise, in the said notification, there is no mention where CIT(E) can transfer to other CIT or Pr.CIT. The said notification of CBDT has authorized the CIT(E) to issue order in writing for the exercise of the powers and functions by the Addl.CIT or JCT or TRO who are \"subordinate\" to them and has authorised the Addl.CIT to issue order in writing for the exercise of the powers by the Assessing Officer who are the subordinate to them. In section 124 of the Act, the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer has been given and not 'Jurisdiction of Commissioner'.” 20.1 The Jaipur Bench has dealt with this issue further in paras 18 to 21 as under:- “18. We also observe that as per Sec. 120(6) of the Act, the CBDT by its Notification No. 52/2014 and 53/2014 dated 22.10.2014 has given power to CIT(Exemption) Jaipur for the State of Rajasthan for all cases of persons in the territorial area specified in column (4) claiming exemption under clauses (21), (22), (22A), (22B), (23), (23A), (23AAA), (23B), (23C), (23F), (23FA), (24), (46) and (47) of section 10, section 11, section 12, section 13A and section 13B of the Act and assessed or assessable by an Income-tax authority at serial numbers 131 to 140 specified in the notification of Government of India bearing number S.O.2752 dated the 22nd October, 2014. Thus firstly as per above notification and provisions of Sec. 120 and 127 the ld. CIT(Exmp.) cannot transfer or hand over or given his work or power or duties to the other same rank of CIT at all to cancel the Registration u/s 12AA. However, in case, if it is necessary to do so then there has to be proper proceedings in writing. As there has to be some order in writing from higher authorities i.e. from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Exmp.) Delhi or CBDT in writing and an opportunity of being heard is to be given to the assessee before transferring the case whereas all these are absent in the present case and nothing has been demonstrated by the department. 19. We further observe that Sec. 127 of the Act empower to transfer cases ITA No.21/CHD/2024 31 among Assessing Officers but not to Commissioners of Income Tax as CIT is not an Assessing Officer. In our view, to pass an order u/s 12A for registration or cancellation is not within the jurisdiction or power of an Assessing Officer. Hence registration u/s. 12A can be withdrawn only by the 'Prescribed Authority' who has been empowered to grant the same and by the Notification dated 22.10.2014 the ld.CIT(Exmp.) has empowered for the same, hence the Pr.CIT (Central) cannot cancelled the same. 20. In assessee's case, the case u/s 127 was transferred to the Central Circle for limited purpose of Co-Ordinate assessment admittedly which do not mean that the Section 12A proceeding has been transferred to the Pr.CIT(Central) Automatically, when both the proceedings are separately or independent and also has to be done or conducted by the different rank Authorities. More particularly when for the purpose of Exemption cases or 12A registration a Separate Commissioner of Income Tax has been Authorized for whole of Rajasthan by the CBDT by its Notification dated 22.10.2014. In support of the above contention, the ld AR has relied on the decision in the case of Dilip Tanaji Kashid vs. M.I. Karmakar PR. CIT& ANR. (2018) 304 CTR 0436 (Bom) wherein It has been held: “Transfer of jurisdiction--Power of competent officers-- Centralization of case--Dissenting note--Assessee was issued notice enshrining proposal for transfer of his case from Kolhapur to Mumbai, so as to centralise cases relating to D.Y. Patil Group--Assessee objected that such notice did not referred to any agreement being reached by officers of equal rank at Mumbai and Kolhapur--These objections were however overruled and assessee's case was transferred--High Court quashed purported transfer u/s 127--Held, \"Centralisation Committee\" which took decision for transfer of jurisdiction, is not authority envisaged u/s 127(2)-- Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Revenue does not disclose that there was any agreement between authorities of equal rank,as a pre-condition for invoking powers u/s 127-- \"Absence of dissenting note\" from officer of equal rank who has to agree to proposed transfer would not constitute agreement, envisaged u/s 123(2)(a)--Assessee's petition allowed.” 21. It was also been brought to our notice that the AR had inspected the records of the case but there was no agreement between both the CIT's regarding initiation of proceedings U/s 12A of the Act. The entire communication on record is with regard to limited purpose of CoOrdinate assessments only. Even the Instruction No. F.No.286/88/2008IT(Inv-II) dated 17.09.2008 has relied upon by the Revenue also relates to \"search assessment\" and was not with regard to proceedings U/s 12A or other proceedings. Even no agreement for initiation proceedings U/s 12AA of the Act has been found out on record. Even, the proposal for centralization was not sent within the statutory time of 30 days from the date of search as admittedly the search was conducted on 30.06.2016 and the proposal was sent on 19.08.2016 i.e. after 30 days of the search. In this respect, the ld AR has relied upon the decision in the case of Rentworks India (P) Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT & ANR.(2017) 100 CCH 0258 Mum HC wherein it has been ITA No.21/CHD/2024 32 held that: “ Income tax authorities--Power to transfer cases-- Jurisdiction-- CIT, issued notice to assessee taking recourse to subsection 2 of Section 127--Assessee was put to notice that there was proposal to transfer case of assessee to DCIT, for proper co-ordinated investigation--Impugned order was made by Principal CIT under sub- section 2 of section 127 by which case of assessee was transferred to DCIT--Held, in Noorul Islam Educational Trust it was held that as Income-tax/assessment file of assessee had been transferred from one AO in Tamil Nadu to another AO in Kerala and two AO were not subordinate to same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 127(2) (a) agreement between Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as case might be, of two jurisdictions was necessary-- Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Revenue did not disclose that there was any such agreement--In fact, it had been consistently and repeatedly stated in said counter affidavit that there was no disagreement between two Commissioners-- Existence of agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners was condition precedent for passing order of transfer-- Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 127 provides for consequences when there was no such agreement--When jurisdiction to pass order of transfer under clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 127 could be exercised only when there was such agreement, fact that such agreement exists ought to had been stated in show cause notice as same was jurisdictional fact- -It was on basis of written document that finding was recorded that there was agreement between Jurisdictional Commissioners 35 ITA No. 1308/Del/2023 of Ranchi and Delhi--Even going by case made out by revenue, no such agreement was spelt out. 8. The Apex Court has categorically held that the absence of disagreement will not be tantamount to an agreement as visualized under section 127(2)(a) which contemplates positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional Principal Commissioners of Income Tax. The agreement contemplated by clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 12 7 may not be a drawn up agreement. What is necessary is that there has to be an agreement which will involve positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional Principal Commissioners. Both of them must consent to the transfer after application of mind. 9. In the present case, it is not even the case made out in the show cause notice that the agreement as contemplated by the first part of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 127 exists. The existence of such agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners is a condition precedent for passing the order of transfer.Except for the request which came from the investigation office, Chennai of transferring the case, 38 ITA 688/JP/2019_ M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association Vs Pr.CIT there is no reference whatsoever to any such agreement. Clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 127 provides for consequences when there is no such agreement. When the jurisdiction to pass an order of transfer under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 127 can ITA No.21/CHD/2024 33 be exercised only when there is such an agreement, the fact that such an agreement exists ought to have been stated in the show cause notice as the same is a jurisdictional fact. Apart from the failure to mention the same in the show cause notice, the only stand of the revenue is that there is an agreement by implication. This stand is completely contrary to paragraph 5 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Noorul Islam Educational Trust (supra). The decision in the case of Ramswaroop (supra) will also bind this Court for the reasons stated above. 10. Coming to the decision in the case of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, relevant facts are in paragraph 12. In the said case, specific reliance was placed on a document dated 2 7th November 2016. It is on the basis of the written document that a 36 ITA No. 1308/Del/2023 finding was recorded that there was an agreement between the Jurisdictional Commissioners of Ranchi and Delhi. In the present case, even going by the case made out by the respondent, no such agreement is spelt out. In absence of any such agreement, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the order of transfer. 11. As the impugned order cannot be sustained on above ground, it is not necessary to into other challenges. 12. Accordingly, for the reasons quoted above, we pass following order: Impugned order dated 25th May 2 017 (Exhibit-H to the petition) is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries & Ors.vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors. (1976) 102 ITR 0281 has been held that: \"The CBDT sent a notice to the appellants under s. 127 proposing to transfer their case files \"for facility of investigation\" from the respective ITO at Nellore to the ITO, B Ward, Special Circle II, Hyderabad. By this notice they were also asked to submit in writing if they had any objection to the proposed transfer within 15 days of receipt of the notice. The appellants made their representation objecting to the transfer and on 26th July, 1973, the Central Board passed the impugned order transferring the cases from Nellore to Hyderabad. The short question that arises for consideration is whether failure to record the reasons in the order which was communicated to the appellants is violative of the principles of natural justice for which the order should be held to be invalid. Held : The requirement of recording reasons under s. 127(1) is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. When law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affecting prejudicially the interests of any person, who can challenge the order in Court, it ceases to be a mere administrative order and the vice of violation ITA No.21/CHD/2024 34 of the principles of natural justice on account of omission to communicate the reasons is not expiated. Non- communication of the reasons in the order passed under s. 127(1) is a serious infirmity in the order for which the same is invalid.--Kashiram Aggarwalla vs. Union of India (1965) 56 ITR 14 (SC) : TC69R.660 and S. Narayanappa vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 741 (All) : TC51R.651 distinguished; Sunanda Rani Jain vs. Union of India 1975 CTR (Del) 135 : (1975) 99 ITR 391 (Del) : TC69R.693 overruled; Judgment and order dt. 12th Sept., 1974, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 626 of 1974 set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noorul Islam Educational Trust vs. CIT AND Ors (2016) 388 ITR 0489 (SC) held that Special Leave Petition--Transfer of case--Validity--High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, upheld order of C.I.T.1, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, transferring file of assessee from Tamil Nadu to Kerala--Held, as Income-tax/assessment file of assessee has been transferred from one Assessing Officer in Tamil Nadu to another Assessing Officer in Kerala and two Assessing Officers are not subordinate to same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax, u/s 127(2) (a) an agreement between Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, of two jurisdictions is necessary-- Absence of disagreement cannot tantamount to agreement as visualized under Section 127(2) (a) which contemplates a positive state of mind of two jurisdictional Commissioners of Income Tax which is conspicuously absent-- Transfer of Income-tax/assessment file of assessee from Assessing Officer, Tamil Nadu to Assessing Officer, Kerala is not justified--High Court order set aside--Special appeal allowed. Although, the ld DR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Lalit Hans Vs PCIT DP Special Appeal (Writ) 249/2015 but the facts of the above case are entirely different. Hence, the said judgment is of no help to the Revenue on the facts of the present case. Thus, keeping in view our above discussions, we are of the view that the ld. PCIT had no jurisdiction to pass order U/s 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly stands quashed.” 21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the law cited before us, we are of the considered view that the impugned order has been passed by Ld. PCIT, Gurgaon, without jurisdiction in context to territorial powers and subject matter as well not in accordance with law and same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted to assessee by allowing additional ground itself, the adjudication of other grounds raised by the assessee become academic in nature and are left open. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.01.2024.” 9. The arguments raised by the ld. CIT DR have been identically taken note by the ITAT. The ld. CIT DR has made ITA No.21/CHD/2024 35 reference to an order of the ITAT Delhi in the case of Shree Krishna Educational Trust Vs Director General of Income Tax. In this case issue before the Tribunal was whether DGIT (Investigation) Lucknow was justified in cancelling the approval granted under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. This approval was to be granted to an educational institution and once an approval is being granted by CIT (Exemptions), then income of an educational institution will not be liable to tax upto a certain quantum. The DG (Investigation), Lucknow has cancelled such approval and this issue travelled upto the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that DG(Investigation) has no power to cancel the approval granted for the purpose of Section 10(23C)(vi). In the opinion of the Tribunal, it was the CIT (Exemptions) or PCIT, the ld. DR wants to persuade the Bench to take note of the passing reference made by the Tribunal in paragraph No. 4 that such approval could be withdrawn by CIT (Exemption) or PCIT. The question in this order is not for the proposition agitated before us. The dispute in that case was whether DGIT was competent to cancel the approval granted to an assessee under Section 10(23C). While dealing with this ITA No.21/CHD/2024 36 issue, an observation is being made that such approval could be cancelled either by CIT (Exemptions) or PCIT. According to the ld. CIT DR, the reference to PCIT be construed as if PCIT has the power to cancel registration under Section 12AA. To our mind, this judgement is not for that authority. It is just a passing observation of one line in paragraph No. 4, but the judgement is in favour of the assessee and for a different proposition. The ld. CIT DR relied upon one more order of the ITAT, Pune Bench. We have perused this judgement and we would like to take note of observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 16, which read as under : “16. Then, the next question that comes up for our consideration is that whether or not Ld. POT was justified in cancelling the registration of trust with retrospective effect from financial year 2007- 08. Without delving into the issue whether the Commissioner had been empowered to cancel registration with retrospective effect, it is suffice to hold that in the present case, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the show cause notice for cancellation of registration held that the contents of order dated 9-10- 2007 passed by the Commissioner cancelling registration shall be treated as show cause notice to the appellant as extracted supra and this finding had not been reversed till date. In the interest of judicial discipline, the ld. PCIT is bound to obey the Directions of Hon'ble High Court and rightly cancelled the registration w.e.f. financial year 2007-08.” 9.1 Thus, this judgement has not adjudicated the issue as canvassed by the ld. CIT DR. We find that all the Benches of the ITAT across the country are unanimous in its approach ITA No.21/CHD/2024 37 that registration granted to an assessee under Section 12AA could only be cancelled by CIT (Exemptions) and not by PCIT. The ITAT, Cuttack as well as Bangalore has conclusively held that Section 12AB sub-section (4) brought on the Statue Book w.e.f. 01.04.2022 cannot be applied with retrospective effect. It is prospective in nature. 10. Respectfully following the judgement of the Co- ordinate Benches on these two propositions, we are of the view that impugned order passed by the PCIT is not sustainable on both the folds of grievances. Hence, we quash the impugned order. We do not deem it necessary to adjudicate any other issue on merit. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 25 t h April,2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” ITA No.21/CHD/2024 38 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u000f/ The Appellant 2. \u0003\u0010यथ\u000f/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u0014/ CIT 4. िवभागीय \u0003ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च\u0018डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "