Joginpally B.R.Educational Society, Hyderabad V. DIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1749/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6611 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VASUNDHARA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Condonation of delay; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 147; 132; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ES A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 17 48 /H YD /20 14 J.B. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, H YDERABAD [PAN: A A ATJ3217A ] VS DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION S ), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 1749/HYD/2014 JOGINPALLY B.R. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD [PAN: AA ATJ4159P ] VS DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERA BAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO , AR FOR REVENUE : SMT. VASUNDHARA SINHA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15 - 0 2 - 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 0 4 - 201 6 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : TH E S E TWO APPEAL S BY D IFFERENT ASSESSEE S OF THE SAME GROUP HAVING COMMON ISSUES WERE HEARD TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ASSESSEES HEREIN WERE ORIGINALLY GRANTED REGISTRATION AND CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPE RATIONS CONDUCTED ON 10 - 09 - 2009, THE REGISTRATION WAS CANCELLED . ASSESSEE S HAVE MADE I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 2 - : FRESH APPLICATION ON 21 - 03 - 2014 FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST AGAIN WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. DIT(E) VIDE ORDER S DT. 29 - 09 - 2014. ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL REGARDING REJECTION OF APPLICATION VIDE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 2. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN THE CASE OF J .B. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IN ITA NO. 1748/HYD/2 014 IS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL. ASSESSEE, J .B. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY WAS EARLIER GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] VIDE PROCEEDIN GS OF CIT, AP - II DT. 18 - 12 - 2000 W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2000. THE SAID REGISTRATION WAS CANCELLED BY THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD DT. 29 - 03 - 2012 F OR THE DET AILED REASONS DISCUSSED THEREIN. T HIS CANCELLATION WAS UPHELD BY THE ITA T IN ITA NO.586/HYD/2012 DATED 31 - 08 - 2012 . ASSESSEE VIDE APPLICATION DT. 21 - 03 - 2014 SOUGHT FRESH REGISTRATION WHICH LD. DIT(E) DID NOT ADMIT THE APPLICATION ITSELF , BY STATING AS UNDER: 4. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT, WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIET Y ON 10 - 09 - 2009, DURING WHICH VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY'S PREMISES, SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL, INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS COLLECTED SUBSTANTIAL DONATIONS/CAPITATION FEES IN CA SH, OVER AND ABOVE THE FEE PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT, FROM STUDENTS SEEKING ADMISSION UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA TO VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL COURSES AND ENGINEERING COURSES IN THE COLLEGES RUN BY THE SOCIETY, AS NOTED IN THAT ORDER OF THE CIT (CENTRAL), THE EVI DENCES RELATING TO COLLECTION OF DONATIONS/CAPITATION FEE ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS ANNEXURE - JB/ A/ 3 TO JB/A/10. SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL CLEARLY ESTABLISHES COLLECTION OF MONEY BY THE SOCIETY OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE BY THE GOVERN MENT FOR ADMISSION OF A STUDENT UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA. 4 . 1 AFTER REFERRING TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOHINI JAIN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (1992) 2 SCC 666, WHERE THE MATTER RELATES TO ISSUE OF CAPITATION FEE COL LECTED BY THE PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE APEX COURT THAT THE CAPITATION FEE IS NOTHING BUT A PRICE FOR SELLING EDUCATION, THE CIT(CENTRAL), IN THAT ORDER, NOTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ADMITS I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 3 - : STUDENTS UNDER MANAGEMEN T QUOTA IN CONSIDERATION OF AN AMOUNT, WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO EARN PROFIT, IT WAS FURTHER NOTED IN THAT ORDER, THAT THE SOCIETY HAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTL Y COLLECTED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY THE PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THE SOCIET Y AND THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF MISUSE OF FUNDS O F THE INSTITUTION. LASTLY , STATIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC, 11 AND 13 OF THE ACT, AND HAS NOT CONDUCTED ITSELF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY, FOR WHICH IT WAS ESTABLISHED, THE CIT (CENTRAL) VIDE THAT OR DER DATED 29 - 03 - 2012 PASSED U/S 12AA(3) OF THE ACT, HAS CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION GRANTED EARLIER TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE FURTHER MENTIONED HERE THAT, THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(CENTRAL) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL ( ITAT' IN SHORT) VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.586/HYD/2012 DATED 31 - 08 - 2012. 5. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12A /12AA OF THE ACT IS A ONE - TIME CERTIFICATE, GRANTED TO A TRUST/INSTITUTION, CLAIMING AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION. THUS, AFTER CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION EARLIER GRANTED U/S 12A TO A CHARITABLE TRUST/INSTITUTION, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE SAME TRUST / INSTITUTION TO AGAIN FILE APPLICATION, SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12A /12AA OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS FOLLOWING CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE INSTITUTION VIDE AN ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 12AA(3) OF THE ACT, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE SAME ASSESSEE INSTITUTION TO FILE APPLICATION AGAIN FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, AND WHEN IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT SOCIETY, REGISTRATION GRANTED EARLIER U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, HAS BEEN CANCELLED VIDE THAT ORDER OF THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD, IN F.NO. CIT(CENTRAL)/H/12AA/JBES/20 11 - 12 DATED 29 - 03 - 2012 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN LATER CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE THEIR ORDER IN ITA NO.586/HYD/2012 DATED 31 - 08 - 2012, THE PRESENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT SOCIETY IN FORM NO.10A ON 21 - 03 - 2014, AGAIN SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 1 2A OF THE ACT, IS NOT ENTERTAINABLE. HENCE, THE SAME IS REJECTED, WITHOUT ADMITTING THE SAME . 2.1. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FORM 10A F OR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY NOT ADMITTING THE SAME. 2. THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMITTED TO FILE APPLICATION ONCE AGAIN SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S. 12A & 12AA, W ITHOUT COMPILING I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 4 - : THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 12AA(1)(A)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. LD. COUNSEL IN HIS ELABORAT E ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY UNDER THE ANDHRA PRADESH (TELANGANA AREAS) PUBLIC SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1350 FASLI (ACT I OF 1350 F.) ON 04.10.1993. THE OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTION ARE DETAILED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: F) TO ESTABLISH AND RUN SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, CATERING AND HOTEL MANAGEMENT INSTITUTES AND IMPART EDUCATION A ND PREPARE STUDENTS FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES EXAMINATION AT STATE AND CENTRAL LEVELS OF EDUCATION; G) TO DEVISE WAYS AND MEANS AND ACCORD FACILITIES FOR CANDIDATES TO SPECIALIZE IN ALL OR ANY OF THE SUBJECTS WITH INDUSTRIAL ORIENTATION. H) TO ESTABLISH , MANAGE, AID AND MAINTAIN EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS, TO IMPART EDUCATION AND TRAINING AT ALL STAGES FOR THE PROMOTION OF CATERING HOTEL, MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING, MEDICINE, PHARMACY, AGRICULTURE, COMMERCE, LITERATE, ARTS AND SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT AND OTHER SUBJECTS AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES FOR DIFFUSION OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING, SPECIALLY TO INSTILL SELF - CONFIDENCE, CREATIVE THINKING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE STUDENTS AND TRAINEES. I) TO OFFER CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN ANY AREA DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS OWNED AND MANAGED BY THE SOCIETY, WITHOUT COMMERCIAL MOTIVE; J) TO CARRY ON ACTIVITIES FOR ANY OTHER CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIES OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 3.1. I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13, 2013 - 14, 2014 - 15 AND 2015 - 16 RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO RECEIPT UNDER THE HEAD 'DONATION' EXCEPTING THE FEES COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FORM THE STUDENTS AS FIXED BY THE G OVERNMENT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS U / S 143(3) ON 10 - 03 - 2014. HE EXAMINED THE CASE I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 5 - : AND DECIDED THAT NO OTHER INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE AMOUNT COLLECTED TOWARDS FEE AS PRESCRIBED. 3.2. ON THE QUESTI ON WHETHER THERE IS ANY RESTRICTION TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/ S 12 AA OF THE I.T.ACT AGAIN , IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION G RANTED U/S 12AA OF THE I.T.ACT, THE SOCIETY IS CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES AS PER THE OBJE CTS MENTIONED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. THE SOCIETY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RUNNING THE FOLLOWING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. 1. J.B. INSTITUTE OF ENGG. & TECHNOLOGY 2. BHASKAR ENGG. COLLEGE 3. BHASKAR PHARMACY COLLEGE 4. BHASKAR LAW COLLEGE NO OTHER ACTIVITY IS CARRIED ON BY THE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES AS PER THE OBJECTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COLLECT ANY DONATION/CAPITATION FEE AFTER THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10. THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 AND ONWARDS ARE FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOMES FILED OR FOUND THAT THERE IS ANY UNACCOUNTED FOR RECEIPT. THEREFORE, THERE IS MARKED CHANGE IN COLLECTING FEE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PERIOD 2010 - 11 AND ONWARDS, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COLLECTING ANY DONATIONS. AS THE METHOD OF COLL E CTION OF FEES AND AS THE ACTIVITIES ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE, THE ASSESSEE I S ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND SOUGHT REGISTRATION U/ S 12AA. 3.3. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HERE IS NO PROVISION EITHER IN SEC.12A OR IN SEC. 12A A PROHIBITING THE ASSESSEE FROM I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 6 - : MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FOR THE SECOND TIME. THE LD. DIT(E) MENTIONED THAT IT IS ONE TIME AFFAIR; BUT TH E PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DO NOT MENTION THAT IT IS ONE TIME AFFAIR. THERE IS ALSO NO PROHIBITION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR MAKING ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE I.T.ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.12AA MENTION CLEARLY THAT AN A PPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST CAN BE MADE IF THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS AS DEFINED U/S. 2(15) OF THE I.T.ACT. 3.4 . REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 OF THE I.T.ACT , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME OF A CHARITABLE I NSTITUTION IS EXEMPT PROVIDED THE INCOME SO DERIVED IS UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY OF PROMOTING EDUCATION AND THE RECEIPT IS BEING UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THEREFORE, IT IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION AN D IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. A READING OF SEC. 11 INDICATES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR SEPARATELY. THE EXEMPTION U/S. 11 IS DEPENDANT ON REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO MENTION THAT REGISTRATION U / S 12A IS ONE TIME AFFAIR. 3.5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE FINANCE ACT NO.2, 2014 AMENDED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.12AA OF THE I. T.ACT BY INTRODUCING 3 PROVISOS TO SEC.12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS EXTRACTING THE SAID PROVISOS HEREUNDER: '8. IN SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, IN SUB - SECTION (2), THE FOLLOWING PROVISOS SHALL BE INSERTED WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014, NAMELY: - 'PROVIDED THAT WHERE REGISTRATION HAS BEE N GRANTED TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12AA, THEN, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR WHICH ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 7 - : OFFICER AS ON THE DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION AND THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION REMAIN THE SAME FOR SUCH PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 1 47 SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY FOR NON - REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT PROVIS IONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IN CASE OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH WAS REFUSED REGISTRATION OR THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO IT WAS CANCELLED AT ANY TIME UNDER SECTION 12AA'. THE CB D T ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS EXPLAINING THE PROVISOS OF FINANCE ACT (NO.2) 2014. THE EXPLANATORY NOTES WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISOS TO SEC.12AA ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: '8. APPLICABILITY OF T H E REGISTRATION GRANTED TO A TRUST OR INSTITUTION TO EARLIER YEARS 8.1 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF T HE INCOME - TAX ACT, BEFORE AMENDMENT BY THE ACT, PROVIDED THAT A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 ONLY AFTER REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE SAID ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED. IN CASE OF TRUSTS OR INSTITUTIONS WHICH APPLY FOR REGISTRATION AFTER 1ST JUNE, 2007, THE REGISTRATION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY. 8.2 NON - APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE YEAR OF REGISTRATION CAUSED GENUIN E HARDSHIP TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZ ATIONS. DUE TO ABSENCE OF REG ISTRATION, TAX LIABILITY IS FASTENED EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY OTHE RW ISE BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AND FULFIL L OTHER SUBSTANTIVE CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, THE POWER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN SEEKING REGISTRATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE. 8.3 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE RELIEF T O SUCH TRUSTS AND REMOVE HARDSHIP IN GENUINE CASES, SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT IN A CASE WHERE A TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, THE BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE SAID ACT SHALL BE AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST IN ANY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON THE DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION, IF THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION IN THE RELEVANT EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE THE SAME AS THOSE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SUCH REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED. I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 8 - : 8.4 FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT NO ACTION FOR REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE FIRST ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE REGISTRATION APPLIES, MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS NOT OBTAINED THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8.5 HOWEVER, THE ABOVE BENEFITS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE IN THE CASE OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH AT ANY TIME HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION AND THE SAME WAS REFUSED UNDER SECTION 12A' 3.6. ELABORATING THE ABOVE PROVISIONS , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO AN INSTITUTION U/S 12AA WOULD OPERATE TO EXEMPT THE INCOME U/S 11 EVEN FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SECOND PROVISO PROHIBITS INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 147 FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING TO THE YEAR OF REGISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE REGISTRATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE INSTITUTION. THE THIRD PROVISO SHOWS THAT IT WOULD OPERATE ONLY WHEN A TRUST/INSTITUTION WHOSE REGISTRAT ION WAS EITHER REFUSED OR CANCELLED IN THE EARLIER PAST CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION AFRESH AND REGISTRATION U/S 12AA CAN BE GRANTED. THE THIRD PROVISO RESTRICTS THAT SUCH REGISTRATION WOULD NOT RETROSPECTIVELY OPERATE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12 FOR THE EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEARS. SUCH REGISTRATION WOULD OPERATE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY. THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT A TRUST/INSTITUTION WHICH WAS EITHER REJECTED REGISTRATION OR WHOSE REGISTRATION EARLIER GRANTED WAS CANCELLED CAN AS WELL FILE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE I T. ACT. A READING OF THE THIRD PROVISO I NTRODUCED AND THE EXPLANATORY NOTES WOULD INDICATE THAT A SECOND APPLICATION IS PERMISSIBLE EVEN WHEN THE EARLIER APPLICATION WAS EITHER REJECTED OR THE EARLIER REGISTRATION WAS CANCELLED. 3. 7 . L D. COUNSEL REFER RED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE I TAT, COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF KADAKKAL EDUCATION TRUST VS. ITO IN I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 9 - : APPEAL NOS. 75, 348 OF 2013 AND 221 (COCH.) OF 2014 DATED 21 - 09 - 2014. A READING OF THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE WOULD INDICA TE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT AND THE SAID APPLICATIONS WERE DEALT IN BY THE CIT AS MENTIONED HEREUNDER: E) THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 30.05.2007 BEFORE THE CIT, TRIVANDRUM. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS REJECTE D. F) THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION ON 30.07.2007 AND HE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN. G) THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION ON 31.03.2010. THIS APPLICATION WAS REJECTED ON 30.09.2010. H) THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION ON 01.12.2010. THE C IT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2011. THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRIMANTA SANKAR ACADEMY REPORTED IN 325 ITR 261. IN THE SAID CASE - D) THE CIT REJECTED THE C LAIM FOR REGISTRATION VIDE ORDER DATED 01.10.2004. THIS ORDER WAS PASSED BASED ON AN APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION ON 30.03.2004 E) THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION ON 10.01.2006 SEEKING REGISTRATION. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE C IT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.05.2006. F) THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE HON'BLE ITAT ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THE DEPARTMENT FIELD AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT - ' (V ) THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED AND NUMBERED AS I. T.A.NO.68 (GAU.)/2006. IN THE SAID APPEAL, THERE WERE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION BETWEEN THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER AN D THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. WHILE THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY DIRECTING THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HAS REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WITH A DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2001 AND PASS NECESSARY ORDER AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. THE APPEAL WAS THUS REFERRED TO THE LEARNED I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 10 - : THIRD MEMBER, WHO VIDE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2007, AGREED WITH THE FINAL ORDER PROPOSED BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED MARCH 22, 2007, WAS PASSED BY THE LEARNED APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY ADOPTING THE MAJORITY VIEW. HENCE THE PRESENT APPEAL'. FROM TH E ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE I S NO PROHIBITION TO FILE A SECOND APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U / S 12AA OF THE I.T.ACT . FURTHER, THE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT NO.2, 2014 BY INTRODUCING THREE PROVISOS WHICH INDICATE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION THAT THERE CAN BE ANOTHER APPLICATION WHEN THE E ARLIER APPLICATION WAS REJECTED OR THE REGISTRATION GRANTED WAS CANCELLED. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE APPLICATION MADE FOR REGISTRATION U / S 12AA CAN NOT BE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE REGISTRATION U / S 12AA IS ONE TIME AFFAIR. 3. 8 . IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DIT(E) REJECTED THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 10 - 09 - 2009. THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT APPLICATION. THE PRESENT APPLICATION WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 014 - 15 AND ONWARDS. THE DIT(E) DID NOT FIND ANY VIOLATION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 ARE COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE ADMITTED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STA TEMENT. THEREFORE, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE D IT(E) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BASED ON THE FINDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED EARLIER WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. IN REPLY, LD. CIT - DR MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS. ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REGISTRATION, HAVING BEEN CANCELLED, CAN BE GRANTED AGAIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SEC.12AA PROVIDES FOR A PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GRANT OF I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 11 - : REGISTRATION TO A TRUS T OR AN INSTITUTION. ACCORDING TO THIS PROCEDURE, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL CALL FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AND CONDUCT ENQUIRIES TO SATISFY ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THIS SATISFACTION THAT T HE COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED TO GRANT REGISTRATION. THE PHRASEOLOGY OF S EC.12AA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE ENQUIRY THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY OUT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION TO A TRUST OR INSTITUTION . T HE SC OPE AND AMBIT OF THE ENQUIRY REVOLVES AROUND THE NATURE OF THE OBJECTS BEING CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS, AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION U / S 12AA(3) FOLLOWS THE SATISFACTION O F THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS. THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION FORMS THE BASIS FOR BOTH THE GRANT OF RE GISTRATION AND ITS CANCELLATION. HAVING HELD AS A FINDING OF FACT, WHILE CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION, THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE NOT GENUINE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS, IT WOULD BE ILLOGICAL AND SELF - CONTRADICTORY FOR THE COMMISSIONE R TO HOLD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE GENUINE, WHICH IS A PRE - REQUISITE FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION. THE REFUSAL TO GRANT REGISTRATION AFTER IT HAS BEEN CANCELLED IS, THEREFORE, A NATURAL COROLLARY OF THE CANCELLATION ITSELF. 4.1. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29 - 03 - 2012, HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS AND CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION U / S 12AA(3). THIS ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS UPHELD B Y THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN IT A NO. 585 - 5 86/HYD/2012, DATED 31.08.2012 WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 12 - : ASSESS E E COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR FINDING, APPROVED BY THE ITAT, THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASS ESSEE WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS AND NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE, THE ASSESSEE CANNO T NOW CLAIM THAT ITS ACTIVITIES ARE GENUINE AND CHARITABLE AND THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION. 4.2 . FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER S EC. 1 2AA(1) WH ICH LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION, NOR S EC. 12AA(3) WHICH LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS CANCELLATION SPECIFY THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ACTIVITIES OF AN ASSESSEE MUST BE ENQUIRED INTO FOR ARRIVING AT THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES. THIS IS SO , SINCE BOTH REGISTRATION AND ITS CANCELLATION ARE ONE - TIME AFFAIRS. FOR GRANTING THE REGISTRATION, THE COMMISSIONER MUST SATISFY HIMSELF THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN GENUINE FOR, ANY OR ALL OF THE YEARS PRECEDING THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION. SIMILARLY, FOR CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION, THE COMMISSIONER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN GENUINE FOR ANY OR ALL OF THE YEARS. IF IT WERE NOT SO, THE ACT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED FOR AN ANNUAL REGISTRATION/CANCELLATION ON THE BASIS OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES FOR THAT PARTICULAR YEAR. THEREFORE, HAVING HELD IN THE ORDER DATED 29 - 03 - 2012 THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJE CTS DURING THE PERIOD RELATING TO A YS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 AND HAVING CANCELLED THE ASSESSEE'S REGISTRATION ON THAT BASIS, THIS CONCLUSION CANNOT BE SUBSEQUENTLY IGNORED WHILE CONSIDERING A FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BY THE SAME ASSESSEE. 4.3 . CL ARIFYING THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR THAT THE THIRD PROVISO TO S EC. 1 2A(2) SUPPORT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM, IT WAS SUBMITTED I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 13 - : THAT SEC.12A(2) PROVIDES THAT FOR APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION MADE AFTER 01 - 06 - 2007, THE BENEFIT OF S EC.L1 AND 12 SHALL APPLY PROSPECTIVELY. THE FIRST PROVISO EXTENDS THIS BENEFIT TO THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SECOND PROVISO FURTHER PROVIDES THAT ACTION U/ S. 147 SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PRECEDING YEARS ONLY FOR NON - REGISTRATION OF SUCH ASSESSEES. THE THIRD PROVISO STATES THAT THE FIRST AND SEC OND PROVISOS SHALL NOT APPLY FOR A TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHERE REGISTRATION WAS EITHER REFUSED OR REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED EARLIER WAS CANCELLED U/S . 12AA. THE THIRD PR OVISO MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT APPEARS IN THE STATUTE. IT MERELY EXCLUDES A CERTAIN CLASS OF ASSESSEES FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISOS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF A HYPOTHETICAL ASSESSEE IN WHOSE CASE REGISTRATION WAS CANCELLED, THE FIRST PROVISO WOULD NOT APPLY, MEANING THAT SEC. 11 AND 12 WILL NOT APPLY FOR PENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE THIRD PROVISO, SUCH AN ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF THE FIRST PROVISO ON THE BASIS OF T HE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION. SIMILARLY, IN VIEW OF THE THIRD PROVISO, THE SECOND PROVISO DOES NOT A PPLY TO THIS HYPOTHETICAL ASSESSEE, MEANING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PERMITTED TO TAKE ACTION U/S 147 FOR PRECEDING YEARS . THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE PR OVISIONS OF THE FINANCE ACT (NO.2), 2014 ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PROVISOS WERE ADDED TO MITIGATE THE HARDSHIP CAUSED TO GENUINE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, WHO MAY OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION, BY A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION, PARTICUL ARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE POWER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE THIRD PROVISO DOES NOT PERMIT, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, A RE - REGISTRATION O NC E IT HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AR, THAT THE THIRD PROVISO PERMITS SUCH RE - REGISTRATION, IS FAR - FETCHED. I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 14 - : 4.4 . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E FACTS LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS CAME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH U/S 132. THESE FACTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FROM THE RECOR DS IN THE FORM OF THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. SEEN IN THIS LIGHT, THE CLAIM OF THE AR THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE CANCELLATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING ON GENUINE ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS CANNOT BE CORROBORATED WITHOUT AN INVESTIGATION POSSIBLE ONLY THROUGH ANOTHER ACTION U/S 132. 4.5 . WITH REFER ENCE TO THE DECISION S IN THE CASES OF KADAKKAL EDUCATION TRUS T AND SHRIMANTA SANKAR ACADEMY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HESE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE CASE OF KADAKKAL EDUCATION ACADEMY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ON 30 - 05 - 2007 WHICH WAS REJECTED BY AN ORDER DATED 26 - 09 - 2007. THE ASSESSEE FILED SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS WHICH WERE ALSO REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE WAS EVENTUALLY GRANTED REGI STRATION ON 20 - 01 - 2011 ON AN APPLICATION DATED 01 - 12 - 2010. THE ITAT NOTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER REJECTED THE APPLICATION DATED 30 - 05 - 2007 ON THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE CERTAIN MATERIAL WHICH WAS CALLED FOR BY LETTER DATED 10 - 07 - 2007. THE ITAT ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE APPARENTLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER AND REGISTRATION WAS ALSO GRANTED FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ITAT SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26 - 09 - 2007 FOR RECONSIDERATION AND WITH A DIRECTION THAT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSIONER. AS IS CLEAR, THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF KADAKKAL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. THERE I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 15 - : WAS NO CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION IN THE CITED CASE, MERELY A REFUSAL TO GRANT REGISTRATION. THERE WAS ALSO N O FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES THAT WERE NOT GENUINE OR WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS. THERE WAS MERELY A FAILURE TO FURNISH MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A VIEW COULD BE TAKEN. THEREFORE, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KADAKKAL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PRECEDENT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4.6 . IN THE CASE OF SHRIMANTA SANKAR ACADEMY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ON 30 - 03 - 2004. THE CIT, WHILE GRANTING REGISTRATION FROM AY 2003 - 04, REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR AY 2002 - 03. THE ASSESSEE THEN FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR AY 2002 - 03 WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY HAD BEEN HELD TO BE GOOD AND COGENT BY THE ITAT. IT ALSO UPHELD THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT TO GRANT REGISTRATION FOR THE AY 2002 - 03. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IN THE CITED CASE AROSE FROM THE REFUSAL OF THE CIT TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION AND THE SUBSEQU ENT REFUSAL TO REVISE HIS OWN ORDER GRANTING REGISTRATION. THERE WAS NO CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION NOR A FINDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PRECEDENT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4.7 . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT WHETHER A SECOND APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION CAN BE FILED BUT WHETHER AN ASSESSEE CAN BE GRANTED REGISTRATION AFTER IT HAS BEEN CANCELLED U/S 12AA(3). TH E CITED CASES ARE NOT ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE DIT(E) VIDE HIS ORDER I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 16 - : DATED 29 - 09 - 2014 REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IS TO BE UPHELD. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SING THE ORDERS ON RECORD AND CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DIT(E) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION. FIRST OF ALL , AS ADMITTED DURING THE HEARING ITSELF, ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CHANGED THE OBJECTS OF THE T RUST NOR CHANG ED THE PERSONS IN THE MANAGEMENT. ON THE SAME SET OF TRUST DEED AND ITS COMMITTEE, ASSESSEE SOUGHT RE - REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST. THE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE REGISTRATION HAVING BEEN CANCELLED CAN BE GRANTED AGAIN? THERE ARE NO PRECEDEN TS ON THE SUBJECT AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE ACT TO GRANT REGISTRATION AGAIN ONCE IT IS CANCELLED. THEREFORE, IT IS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING PROVISIONS AND LAW ON THE SUBJECT. SEC TION 12AA PROVIDES FOR A PROCEDURE TO B E FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION TO A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION. ACCORDING TO THIS PROCEDURE, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL CALL FOR DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AND CONDUCT ENQUIRIES TO SATISFY ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF TH E TRUST OR INSTITUTION. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THIS SATISFACTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED TO GRANT REGISTRATION. THE PHRASEOLOGY OF SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE ENQUIRY THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY O UT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION TO A TRUST OR INSTITUTION, THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE ENQUIRY REVOLVES AROUND THE NATURE OF THE OBJECTS BEING CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS, AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(3) FOLLOWS THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 17 - : OBJECTS. THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVI TIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION FORMS THE BASIS FOR BOTH THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION AND ITS CANCELLATION. HAVING HELD AS A FINDING OF FACT, WHILE CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION, THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE NOT GENUINE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS O BJECTS, IT WOULD BE ILLOGICAL AND SELF - CONTRADICTORY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO HOLD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE GENUINE, WHICH IS A PRE - REQUISITE FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION. THE REFUSAL TO GRANT REGISTRATION AFTER IT HAS BEEN CANCELLED IS, THEREFORE, A NATURAL COROLLARY OF THE CANCELLAT ION ITSELF. 5 . 1. THE PROCEDURE FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION WAS NOT ORIGINALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01 - 10 - 2004 BY INCORPORATING SUB - SECTION 3 OF SECTION 12AA. CONSEQUENT TO THE DI FFERENCE OF OPINION WHETHER REGI STRATION GRANTED EARLIER BEFORE THIS POWER OF CANCELLATI O N WAS GRANTED BY THE ACT CAN ALSO BE CANCELLED, SUB - SECTION 4 TO SECTION 12AA WAS INSERTED W.E.F. 01 - 10 - 2014. THUS, AT PRESENT, A REGISTRATION OF A TRUST CAN BE CANCEL LED BY THE COMMISSIONER WHEN HE IS SATISFIED THAT ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT S OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS THE CASE MAY BE. THUS, THE CONDUCT OF THE TRUST IN PERFORM ING ITS ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS ARE MATER IAL FOR CONSIDERING THE ISSUE EITHER FOR REGISTRATION OF FOR CANCELLATION. AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE FOUND TO BE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR I NSTITUTION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE REGISTRATION GRANTED EARLIER STOOD CANCELLED BY THE DIT(E) / CIT . I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 18 - : 5.2. I N OUR OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME TRUST DEED AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST, REGISTRATION CANNOT BE GRANTED BY THE AUTHORITY , WHO HAS EARLIER C ANCELLED THE REGISTRATION. EVEN THOUGH NOT A DIRECTLY RELATED CASE BUT ON SIMILAR SITUATION, THE HON'BLE M ADHYA P RADESH HIGH COURT , INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHYAMLAL M SONY [276 ITR 156] HAS CONSIDERED THAT WHEN AN APPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE SAM E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED, THEN, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT ALL APPEALS FROM THAT ORDER ARE TO BE DISPOSED OF ON THE SAME LINES. IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE WHETHER THE DISMISSAL WAS BY A SPEAKING OR OTHERWISE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE COURT W AS BOUND BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE EARLIER DIVISIONAL BENCH DISMISSING THE APPEAL WHICH AROSE OUT OF THIS VERY SAME ORDER. TAKING SUPPORT FROM THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DIT/CIT C ANNOT TAKE A DECISION AGAINST ITS OWN DECISION CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION EARLIER , NOW REGISTERING THE TRUST AGAIN SO AS TO CONFER CERTAIN BENEFITS WHICH ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT FOUND ENTITLED EARLIER . IN VIEW OF THAT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT RE - REGIST RATION ON THE SAME TRUST DEED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES WH ICH MAY AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF EARLIER DECISION CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION. 6. LD. COUNSEL IN HIS ARGUMENTS RELIED O N THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2 ) PARTICULARLY ON THE THIRD PROVI SO TO STATE THAT IT CONFERS POWER TO APPLY FOR RE - REGISTRATION AFTER CANCELLATION OF THE SAME. ON EXAMINATION OF PROVISIONS W E ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE LD. COUNSEL. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR, FIRST AND SECOND PROV ISO TO SECTION 12A(2) PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCE PTIONS WHEN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS MADE. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) ARE AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 19 - : 12A. XXXXXXXXXXX [(2) WHERE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR I NSTITUTION FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS MADE:] [PROVIDED THAT WHERE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12AA , THEN, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON THE DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION AND THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION REMAIN THE SAME FOR SUCH PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY FOR NON - REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO TH AT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IN CASE OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH WAS REFUSED REGISTRATION OR THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO IT WAS CANCELLED AT ANY TIME UNDER SECTION 12AA . ] 6.1. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, WHERE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE, 2007 , THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 WHICH SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON THE DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION AND THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION REMAIN THE SAME FOR SUCH PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR . THUS F IRST PROVISO EXTENDS THE BENEFIT TO THE YEAR PRIO R TO THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, I F ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE AO AS ON THE DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION PROVIDED THE OBJECTS AND AC T IVITIES REMAIN T HE SAME FOR SUCH PRECEDING YEAR. SECOND PROVISO PROVIDES FURTHER THAT NO ACTION U/S. 147 SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE AO FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PROCEEDING THE AFORESAID I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 20 - : ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY FOR NON - REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRUST FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6. 2 . THIRD PROVISO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IN CASE OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH WA S REFUSED REGISTRATI ON OR REGISTRATION GRANTED TO IT WAS CANCELLED AT ANY TIME U/S. 12AA. THE THIRD PROVISO MUST B E READ IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT APPEARS IN THE STATUTE. THE THIRD PROVISO ONLY PROVIDES EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICATION OF FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO IN CASE THE REGISTRATION WAS NOT GRANTED OR REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED WAS CANCELLED. IN ASSESSEES CASE, THE REGISTRATION WAS CANCELLED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF FIRST AND SECOND PROVISOS IN CASE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE PENDING AT THE TIME OF CANCELLATION. S UBSEQUENTLY B Y MAKING AN APPLICATION AGAIN WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN OBJECTS ASSESSEE , IN A WA Y IS TRYING TO OVERCOME THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . TO EXAMINE, WE WILL CONSIDER A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION THAT REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE ON THE REVISED APPLICATION MADE AFTER THE SAME WAS VALIDLY CANCELLED . IN THAT CASE, THE FIRST AND SECOND PRO VISOS WILL APPLY TO ASSESSEE FOR PREVIOUS YEARS WHICH ARE PENDING WHICH MAY ALSO COVER YEARS OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION. THUS, IN A WAY, THE PROVISIONS BECOME OTIOS E, IF ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION WAS ALLOWED. THIS IS NOT THE INTENTION OF T HE LEGISLATURE. ONLY WHEN REGISTRATION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, THE PROVISOS ONE AND TWO CAN BE APPLIED BUT NOT OTHERWISE. ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO OVERCOME THE DIFFICULTIES OF REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION FOR THE YEARS FOLLOWING THE SEARCH BY MAKING THE APPLICATIO N AGAIN , SO THAT THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS AS ON THE DATE OF APPLICATION MAY ALSO GET SIMILAR EXEMPTION. THIS CAN NOT BE PERMITTED AS IT IS THE INTENTION TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT TRUST/ INSTITUTION VIOLATED THE OBJECTS OR FOUND TO B E I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 21 - : NOT A GENUINE ONE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THIRD PROVISO ENTITLE ASSESSEE TO RE - REGISTRATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 6.3 . THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF T HE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET I N INDIA VS. ITO [ 19 ITR (TRIB) 91], MUMBAI HAS CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF CHANGE OF MEMORANDUM AND BY - LAWS OF THE SOCIETY IN A CASE WHERE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED: THERE MIGHT BE NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR INTIMATING THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX OF THE C HANGES IN THE MEMORANDUM AND RULES AND REGULATIONS OF A TRUST DOES NOT FULFIL ITS UNDERTAKING TO FURNISH THE CHANGES, IT CANNOT CLAIM AUTOMATIC BENEFITS UNDER SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ALTERED OBJECTS, RULES AND REGULATIONS. BE NEFITS UNDER THE ACT CANNOT BE CLAIMED UNLESS THE CHANGES ARE VETTED BY THE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY WAS DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE TAMIL NADU REGISTRATION ACT, 1975. ITS MAIN OBJECT WAS TO PROMOTE THE GAME OF CRICKET. IT WAS REGISTERED UNDER SE CTION 12A, 1996. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY HAD AMENDED ITS MEMORANDUM AND MADE AMENDMENTS IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THAT THE CHANGES WERE NO T INTIMATED TO THE INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT. HENCE, HE HELD THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, BY ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1996, DID NOT SURVIVE FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE OBJECTS WERE CHANGED, I.E., JUNE 1, 2006. ON APPEAL: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, AS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 25 ACT, THAT THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION L2A DID NOT MEAN T. THE NAME OF THE SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED. IT MEANS THAT THE MEMORANDUM AND BYE - LAWS WERE EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES AND ON BEING SATISFIED THAT THE MEMORANDUM AND BYE - LAWS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION L2A, WAS GRANTED AND THIS, IN TURN, ENABLES THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. THUS, WHAT WAS REGIST ERED WAS THE SOCIETY ALONG WITH ITS MEMORANDUM AND BYE - LAWS. IF THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT OR MATERIAL CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS OR BYE - LAWS, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A, COULD BE EXTENDED TO THOSE AMENDED OBJECTS AND BYE - LAWS. AN Y OTHER VIEW WOULD DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. THE BENEFITS THAT FLOWED FROM REGISTRATION OF AN ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 12A, COUL D NOT BE EXTENDED TO THE AMENDED CLAUSES OF THE I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 22 - : MEMORANDUM AND RULES AND REGULATIONS. THE CHANGES IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WERE ALSO MATERIAL AND HAD TO BE INTIMATED TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT BOUND BY THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A, TO THE EXTENT THE MEMORANDUM AND RULES AND REGULATIONS HAD BEEN AMENDED. THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY SHOULD APPROACH THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY WITH THE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS SO THAT THE AUTHORITIES COULD EXAMINE AS TO WH ETHER THE AMENDMENTS IN QUESTION MET THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW . T HUS, EVEN WHEN A REGISTRATION IS VALIDLY HELD BY A TRUST OR INSTITUTION, IF THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE BY - LAWS OR OBJECTS OF THE TRUST IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD APPROACH THE REGISTE RING AUTHORITY AGAIN . DRAWING ANALOGY FROM THE SAID DECISION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ON THE SAME SET OF OBJECTS AND BY - LAWS OF THE TRUST ON WHICH REGISTRATION WAS CANCELLED VALIDLY , THE DIT/CIT CANNOT RE - REGISTER THE SOCIETY. 7. ONE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE COMPLETED WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION ACCEPTING THE BOOK RESULTS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT COLLECTING ANY DONATION OR CAPITATION FEES. THIS ASPECT AS RI GHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT - DR IN HER ARGUMENTS CANNOT COME TO LIGHT, UNLESS THERE IS AGAIN SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE - TRUST IS NOT GENUINE AND NOT FULFILLING THE OBJECTS HAS COME TO KNOWLEDGE ONLY AFTER SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS AS ANY SORT OF COLLECTION O F DONATIONS OR CAPITATION FEES WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. GENERAL ENQUIRY UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO DOES NOT ESTABLISH THESE FACTS. MOREOVER, IT IS ALREADY AN ESTABLISHED LAW THAT DIT/CIT(E) CANNOT M AKE ROVING ENQUIRIES AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION AND HIS ROLE IS LIMITED TO EXAMINING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WHETHER THEY ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND THE TRUST IS A GENUINE ONE. TO THAT EXTENT, DIT/CIT(E) CAN ONLY RELY ON THE TRUST I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 23 - : DEED. ON THE VERY B ASIS OF THE TRUST DEED THAT DIT/CIT(E) HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT TRUST IS NOT GENUINE AND ITS OBJECTS ARE NOT FULF ILLED, AT THE TIME OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION. THEREFORE, ON THE SAME BASIS OF TRUST DEED, A DIFFERENT OPINION CANNOT BE TAKEN FOR R E - REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRUST CANNOT SEEK RE - REGISTRATION BASED ON THE VERY SAME TRUST DEED. 8 . THE STATUTE ALSO SHOULD SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR RE - REGISTRATION . UNDER T HE COMPANYS LAW RE - REGISTRATIO N WAS PROVIDED WHENEVER A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY CONVERTS ITSELF INTO A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. IF THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE TRUST TO WHICH REGISTRATION WA S ALREADY CAN CELLED, THEN THERE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TO THAT E XTENT PROVIDED IN THE IT ACT. THERE ARE NO SUCH PROVISIONS MADE SO FAR. ONE CANNOT INFER SUCH RIGHT WHEN THE CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED HAS BECOME FINAL. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY SECOND INNINGS BY WAY OF REGISTRATION OF THE SAME TRUST WITH THE SAME OBJECTS. WHEN THERE IS NO SPECIFIC RIGHT PROVIDED IN THE ACT FOR RE - REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST, ASSESSEE CANNOT SEEK SUCH REGISTRATION . I T MAY BE DIFFERENT SCENARIO/CASE IF AS SESSEE HAS MODIFIED ITS OBJECTS, OR CHANGED ITS COMMITTEE W HO WERE GOVERNING THE TRUST OR HANDED OVER THE PROPERTY OF THE TRUST TO ANOTHER TRUST F OR ITS PROPER MAINTENANCE, THEN, FRESH REGISTRATION OF THE NEW TRUST COULD BE EXAMINED BY THE DIT/CIT AS PER THE LAW. AT PRESENT THERE IS NO PROVISION EITHER IN SEC.1 2A OR IN SEC. 12AA ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE REGISTRATION FOR THE SECOND TIME. LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON CERTAIN CASES IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IN THOSE CITED CASES AROSE FROM THE REFUSAL OF THE CIT TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPL ICATION OR REFUSAL TO REVISE HIS OWN ORDER GRANTING I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 24 - : REGISTRATION. THERE WAS NO CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION NOR A FINDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS. THEREFORE, THESE DECISIONS CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS PRECEDENT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. LD CIT - DR RIGHTLY DISTINGUISHED THE CASES WITH WHICH WE AGREE. 9 . IN THE GIVEN FACTS , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT APPLY FOR RE - REGISTRATION, ONCE THE REGISTRATION GRANTED WAS CANCELLED VALIDLY , H AVING FOUND THAT THAT THE TRUST IS NOT GENUINE AND HAS NOT BEEN CARRYING OUT ITS ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT WAS CORRECT IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN THE APPLICATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO . 1749/HYD/2014 JOGINPALLY B.R. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY : 10 . AS FAR AS THIS APPEAL IS CONCERNED , THE SOCIETY JOGINPALLY B.R. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY WAS EARLIER GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT VIDE PROCEED INGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD (DIT(E) IN SHORT) IN F.NO. HQRS. I/28/12A/DIT(E) DATED 12 - 03 - 2004 W.E.F. 21 - 01 - 2004. THE SAID REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN CANCELLED LATER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29 - 03 - 2012, FOR THE DETAILED REASON DISCUSSED THEREIN. THIS CANCELLATION WAS UPHELD BY THE ITAT AND IN TURN WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. ASSESSEE VIDE APPLICATION DT. 21 - 03 - 2014 SOUGHT FRE SH REGISTRATION WHICH LD. DIT(E) DID NOT ADMIT THE APPLICATION ITSELF, BY STATING AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 25 - : 4. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT, WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ON 10 - 09 - 2009, DURING WHICH VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUME NTS WERE FOUND AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY'S PREMISES, SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL, INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS COLLECTED SUBSTANTIAL DONATIONS/CAPITATION FEES IN CASH, OVER AND ABOVE THE FEE PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT, F ROM STUDENTS SEEKING ADMISSION UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA TO VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL COURSES AND ENGINEERING COURSES IN THE COLLEGES RUN BY THE SOCIETY, AS NOTED IN THAT ORDER OF THE CIT (CENTRAL), THE EVIDENCES RELATING TO COLLECTION OF DONATIONS/CAPITATION FEE ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS ANNEXURE - JB/A/3 TO JB/A/10. SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL CLEARLY ESTABLISHES COLLECTION OF MONEY BY THE SOCIETY OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR ADMISSION OF A STUDENT UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA. 4.1 AFTER REFERRING TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOHINI JAIN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (1992) 2 SCC 666, WHERE THE MATTER RELATES TO ISSUE OF CAPITATION FEE COLLECTED BY THE PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE APEX COURT THAT THE CAPITATION FEE IS NOTHING BUT A PRICE FOR SELLING EDUCATION, THE CIT(CENTRAL), IN THAT ORDER, NOTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ADMITS STUDENTS UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA IN CONSIDERATION OF AN AMOUNT, WHICH IS OVER AND A BOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO EARN PROFIT, IT WAS FURTHER NOTED IN THAT ORDER, THAT THE SOCIETY HAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY COLLECTED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN RECORD ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY THE PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THE SOCIETY AND THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF MISUSE OF FUNDS OF THE INSTITUTION. LASTLY, STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIE TY HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC, 11 AND 13 OF THE ACT, AND HAS NOT CONDUCTED ITSELF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY, FOR WHICH IT WAS ESTABLISHED, THE CIT (CENTRAL) VIDE THAT ORDER DATED 29 - 03 - 2012 PASSED U/S 12AA(3) OF THE ACT, HAS CA NCELLED THE REGISTRATION GRANTED EARLIER TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE FURTHER MENTIONED HERE THAT, THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(CENTRAL) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT' IN SHORT) VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.586/HYD/2012 DATED 31 - 08 - 2012. 5. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12A /12AA OF THE ACT IS A ONE - TIME CERTIFICATE, GRANTED TO A TRUST/INSTITUTION, CLAIMING AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION. THUS, AFTER CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION EAR LIER GRANTED U/S 12A TO A CHARITABLE TRUST/INSTITUTION, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE SAME TRUST / INSTITUTION TO AGAIN FILE APPLICATION, SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12A /12AA OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS FOLLOWING CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE INSTITUTION VIDE AN ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 12AA(3) OF THE ACT, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE SAME ASSESSEE INSTITUTION TO FILE APPLICATION AGAIN FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, AN D WHEN IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT SOCIETY, REGISTRATION GRANTED EARLIER U/S I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 26 - : 12AA OF THE ACT, HAS BEEN CANCELLED VIDE THAT ORDER OF THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD, IN F.NO. CIT(CENTRAL)/H/12AA/JBES/2011 - 12 DATED 29 - 03 - 2012 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN LATER CONFIRM ED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE THEIR ORDER IN ITA NO.586/HYD/2012 DATED 31 - 08 - 2012, THE PRESENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT SOCIETY IN FORM NO.10A ON 21 - 03 - 2014, AGAIN SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT, IS NOT ENTERT AI NABLE. HENCE, THE SAME IS RE JECTED, WITHOUT ADMITTING THE SAME. 1 1 . SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AND ORDERS ARE ALSO SAME, IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE IN THE OTHER APPEAL , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRUST IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE - REGISTRATION AFTER ITS CANCELLATION. THERE I S NO MERIT IN ASSESSEES GROUNDS. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL , 2016 SD/ - SD/ - (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH APRIL , 2016 TNMM I.T.A. NO S . 1748 & 1749/HYD/14 : - 27 - : COPY TO : 1. J.B. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O. M/S. MAHESH, VIRENDER & SRIRAM, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 788/36&37A, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. 2. JOGINPALLY B.R. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O. M/S. MAHESH, VIRENDER & SRIRAM, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 788/36&37A, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. 3 . DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION S ) , HYDERABAD. 4 . CIT ( CENTRAL ) , HYDERABAD. 5 . D.R. ITAT, HYDER ABAD. 6 . GUARD FILE.