LALA LAJPATRAI MEMORIAL TRUST, MUMBAI V. DIT(E), MUMBAI

ITA 6289/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 628919914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS S PADMAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: D B SHAH; FIROZ B ANDHYARUJINA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Rule of consistency; Retrospective amendment; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - A BENCH. , ! '# , ' ! BEFORE S/SH. JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.6289/MUM/2009 LALA LAJPATRAI MEMORIAL TRUST, LALA LAJPATRAI MARG, HAJI ALI, MUMBAI-400034 PAN:AAAALO158M VS. DIT(E), 6TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) () () () () * * * * ' '' ' / ASSESSEE BY : MR. FIROZ B. ANDHYARUJINA & D.B.SHAH ! + * ' / REVENUE BY : MRS. S. PADMAJA + ++ + ) , ) , ) , ) , / DATE OF HEARING : 08-09-2014 -. + ) , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-09-2014 , 1961 + ++ + 254(1) ' '' ' )) )) )) )) '/ '/ '/ '/ ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM ' ' ' ' ! ! ! ! '# '# '# '# ' '' ' : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2009 OF THE DIREC TOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI (DIT-E) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: GROUND NO.1:AGAINST PASSING ORDER U/S 80G OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT), AFTER THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT (A)THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) [HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO ASDIT (E)] HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 80G OF THE ACT AFTER THE TIME LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS, PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE11AA (6) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES) (B)YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT, AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF THE SUB--RULE 6 OF RULE 11AA OF THE RULES, NO ORDER ON THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIFIC ATE UNDER SECTION 80(G)(5) CAN BE PASSED AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION I S MADE. (C)YOUR APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THE ORDER DATED 12 TH OCTOBER,2009, PASSED U/S 80G OF THE ACT AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION B Y THE APPELLANT, BE DECLARE VOID AB-INITIO AND BE QUASHED. GROUND NO.2: AGAINST ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE DIT (E) FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION U./S 12A OF THE ACT (A)WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO.1 ABOVE, WHIL E PASSING THE ORDER U/S 80G OF THE ACT, THE DIT (E) HAS ERRED IN WITHDRAWING THE REGISTRATION O F THE APPELLANT U/S 12A OF THE ACT. (B)YOUR APPELLANT, HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE DIT (E) HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT, WHILE PASSING AN ORDER U/S G(5) OF THE ACT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DIT (E) HAS LIMITED JURISDICTION ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GR ANTING OR REFUSING THE EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT, WHICH CAN NOT BE EXTENDED TO CANCELING THE REG ISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT. (C)THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THE ORDER O F THE DIT(E) WITHDRAWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 1 2A OF THE ACT BE DECLARED AS PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTI ON AND AS NULLITY ON THAT BASIS. GROUND NO.3 :AGAINST WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT (A)WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 ABO VE, THE DIT(E) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT, FOR CANCE LING THE REGISTRATION OF THE APPELLANT OBTAINED U/S 1 2A OF THE ACT. (B)THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT CAN BE APPLIED ONLY TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED UNDER THAT SECT ION AND CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO ANY OTHER SITUATION OR REASON. (C)THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THE ACTION OF THE DIT (E) OF APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA(3) TO THE APPELLANTS CASE, IN THE ABS ENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES PRESCRIBED U/S 12AA(3) OF THE ACT, BE DECLARED VOID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DIT (E) BE DIRECTED TO 2 ITA NO. 6289/MUM/2009 LALA LAJPATRAI MEMORIAL TRUST REINSTATE THE REGISTRATION AS CHARITABLE TRUST WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. GROUND NO.4 :AGAINST REFUSING TO RENEW CERTIFICATE U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT(A)THE DIT (E) HAS ERRED IN REFUSING TO RENEW THE CERTIFIC ATE U/S 80G (5)OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AN EXEMPTION HAS BEEN GRANTED U/S 80G OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT, ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME SET OF FACTS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.04.2006 TO 31.03.2009. (B)THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT AS THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AS COMPARED TO THE PERIOD OF 1.04.2006 TO 3 1.03.2009 FOR WHICH THE CERTIFICA TE IS ALREADY ISSUED AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, DENIAL TO RENEW APPROVAL T O GRANT CERTIFICATE U/S 80G(5) FOR FURTHER PERIOD IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. (C)THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PAYS THAT THE DIT (B) BE DIRECTED TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE U/S 80G (5) OF THE ACT, IN CONTINUATION OF THE EARLIER ONE, IN LIGHT O F THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AFTER THE EARLIER PERIOD FOR WHICH THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS GRANTED. GROUND NO.5: LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND/OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL YOUR APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND /OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF SO REQUIRED. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FILED AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT O F 80G CERTIFICATE ON 06.01.2009 BEFORE THE DIT-E.WHILE GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED ALONG W ITH THE APPLICATION,HE FOUND THAT THE TRUST- DEED HAD BEEN AMENDED,THAT ON 09.06.2004 A MEETING WAS HELD AND THE TRUSTEES DECIDED TO AMEND SUB-CLAUSE (III) OF CLAUSE 5, THAT IN THE ORIGINAL DEED THE WORDS MENTIONED WERE TO DONATE PART OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST OPERATING FOR ANY INSTITUTI ON WHICH IS LIKELY TO PROMOTE EDUCATION OR ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF PUBLIC GENERAL UTILITY, THAT THE TRUSTEES DECIDED TO DELETE THE WORDS OR ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF PUBLIC GENERAL UTILITY.THE DIT-E WAS OF THE OPINION THAT BY AMENDING THE TRUST-DEED THE ASSESSEE HAD LOST THE RIGHT TO GET FURTHER REGI STRATION/CERTIFICATE U/S.80G OF THE ACT.AS A RESULT HE WITHDREW THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSE E-TRUST FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE OBJECTS WERE AMENDED. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.07.2009 WAS I SSUED TO THE TRUST REQUIRING IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE APPLICATION FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80G OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT WORDS ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF GE NERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WERE DELETED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE THEN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, T HAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST EVEN AFTER THE DELETION OF WORDS, THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS IN DEFAULT IN THAT REGARD.AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE-TRUST THE DIT-E CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE & ORS.(291 ITR 116).HE FURTHER HELD THAT ON THE BASIS OF AN INVALID TRUST DEED THE APPROVAL U/S.80G EXEMPTION COULD NOT BE GRANTED.AGG RIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE DIT-E, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL VI DE ITS ORDER DATED 30.09.2011,(ITA NO. 6289/ MUM/2009)THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF SURAT HOSPITAL TRUST ASSOCIATION OF 7T H DAY ADVENTIST (ITA NO. 764/MUM/2010)THE TRIBUNAL,REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TH E DIT-E WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS.THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE ORDER U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ITAT.VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31ST MAY 2012,THE TRI BUNAL RECALLED THE EARLIER ORDER AND DIRECTED THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING IN THE ORDINARY COURSE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) ON 14.01.1976 ON TH E BASIS OF OBJECTS CONTAINED IN THE TRUST-DEED, THAT AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF 80G CERTIFICATE WA S FILED ON 06.01.2009, THAT ON 09.06.2004 SUB- CLAUSE-5 WAS AMENDED, THAT 80G EXEMPTION WAS GRANTE D IN 2006, THAT HEARING FOR CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION WAS HELD ON 28TH JULY 2009, THAT THE D IT-E PASSED ORDER ON 12.09.2009, THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS, THAT AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 11AA(6) DIT-E WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CERTIFICATE U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT AFTER 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS M ADE, THAT THE ORDER WAS VOID AB-INITIO. HE REFERRED TO DECISIONS OF BHAGWAD SWARUP SHRI SHRI DEVRAHA BABA MEMORIAL SHRI HARI PARMARTH DHAM TRUST (299 ITR 161 (DEL TRIB.-SPECIAL BENCH),S ARDARI LAL OBERAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST (3 SOT 229).HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE DIT-E HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE VALIDITY 3 ITA NO. 6289/MUM/2009 LALA LAJPATRAI MEMORIAL TRUST OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S.12A OF THE ACT WHIL E PASSING THE ORDER U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT, THAT HE COULD EITHER GRANT OR REFUSE THE APPROVAL U/S.80 G OF THE ACT, THAT HE COULD NOT CANCEL THE REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT. HE REFERRED TO THE ORDERS/DECISIONS OF H.P. GOVT. ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (7-TAXMANN.COM-69)SHRI LALITA ASHRAM TRUST(39 SOT324). AR CONTENDED THAT DIT-E COULD NOT WITHDRAW REGISTRATIO N GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT, THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 12AA(3) IN RESPECT OF TRUST REGISTERED U/S.12A OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED FRO M 01.06.2010, THAT THE ORDER CANCELLING REGISTRATION WAS PASSED IN 2009,THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA(3) COULD BE APPLIED ONLY IN SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT BOTH THE CONDITIONS M ENTIONED IN SECTION 12AA(3) WERE NOT SATISFIED,THAT HE HAD ISSUED 80G CERTIFICATE ON 30. 10.2006 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2006 TO 31.03. 2009,THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE A SSESSES CASE AFTER 01.04.2006. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT AMENDMENT TO THE TR UST-DEED CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DIT-E ONLY IN 2009, THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A WERE RIGHTL Y APPLIED, THAT PRINCIPLES OF RES-JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME-TAX.SHE RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA(22 TAXMANN.COM 29) AND KARIMANGALAM ONRIYA PENGAL SEMI PU AMAIPU LTD. (32 TAXMANN. COM 292). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL.UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAD MADE AN APPLICATION BEF ORE THE DIT-E FOR ISSUING CERTIFICATE U/S.80G OF THE ACT,THAT THE DIT-E CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION O F THE TRUST INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 AA OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT ISSUED CERTIFICATE U/S.80G OF THE ACT,THAT THE DIT-E WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AMENDMENT TO TRUST DEED DIS ENTITLED THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING APPLICATION FOR 80G PURPOSES,THAT THE TRUST DEED WAS AMENDED IN 2004,THAT IN 2006 THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED 80G CERTIFICATE, THAT THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE A SSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF 80G OF THE ACT WAS DECIDED AFTER A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.IN THE CAS ES OF BHAGWAD SWARUP SHRI SHRI DEVRAHA BABA MEMORIAL SHRI HARI PARMARTH DHAM TRUST (SUPRA)IT HA S BEEN HELD BY THE SPECIAL BENCH THAT IF THE ORDER IS PASSED AFTER A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS,IT IS NOT A VALID ORDER PASSED U/S.80G OF THE ACT.PROVISIONS RULE 11(A)6 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962(RULES)ARE CLEAR AND SAME ENVISAGE THAT APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.80G OF THE ACT SHO ULD BE DISPOSED OFF WITH IN THE STIPULATE TIME FRAME.THE WORDS USED IN THE RULE ARE MANDATORY IN N ATURE.WE FIND THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE YEAR 2006 AND YEAR 2009 WERE SAME.IF REGISTRATI ON WAS GRANTED U/S.80G ON EARLIER OCCASION, THEN DO REFUSE THE REGISTRATION ON SUBSEQUENT OCCAS ION THE DIT-E SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT SOMETHING MATERIAL ON RECORD.RULE OF CONSISTENCY IS ONE OF TH E RECOGNISED RULE OF TAX JURISPRUDENCE.IT IS SAID THAT DECISION ON AN ISSUE OR QUESTION TAKEN IN EARL IER YEARS THOUGH NOT BINDING SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND NOT IGNORED UNLESS THERE ARE GOOD AND SUFFICIEN T REASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. SAID PRINCIPLE IS BASED UPON RULES OF CERTAINTY AND CONS ISTENCY THAT A DECISION TAKEN AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY AS THIS LEAD TO CERTAINTY, UNLESS THERE ARE VALID AND GOOD REASONS FOR DEVIATING AND NOT ACCEPTING EA RLIER DECISION. WE FIND THAT IN THE ORDER OF THE DIT-E NO VALID OR GOOD REASONS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED FOR REFUSING REGISTRATION U/S.80G OF THE ACT.THEREFORE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT REFUSAL BY THE DIT-E IN GRANTING REGISTRATION FOR SPECIAL DEDUCTION WAS NOT VALID. GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. 4.1. NOW WE WOULD DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION U/S.12 AA OF THE ACT.IT IS SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CANCELLING TH E REGISTRATION WERE BROUGHT ON STATUE W.E.F.01.06. 2010. IN THE CASE OF SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION S OCIETY(343ITR23)THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: AS A RESULT OF THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, WITH EFFECT FROM JUNE 1, 2010, THE COMMISSION ER HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERED TO CANCEL A REGISTRATION OBTAINED UNDER SECTION 12A, AS IT ST OOD PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1996. THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISION IS TO EMP OWER THE COMMISSIONER TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF A TRUST WHERE HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIE S OF THE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE T RUST OR INSTITUTION. THIS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A RETROSPECTIVE ALTERATION OF THE LAW. 4 ITA NO. 6289/MUM/2009 LALA LAJPATRAI MEMORIAL TRUST ACCORDING TO CIRCULAR NO. 1 OF 2011 DATED 06.04.201 1,ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,THE REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED UNDER SECTIO N 12A OF THE ACT CAN BE CANCELLED ONLY FOR AY.2011-12 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND THE AMENDED PRO VISION ARE APPLICABLE FROM 01.06.2010.IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US,THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED W AS 2009-10, AND THEREFORE, DIT-E WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION ALREADY GR ANTED TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA( 3) OF THE ACT.THEREFORE,INVOKING THE CANCELLATION PROVISIONS IN THE YEAR 2009 IS NOT AS PER THE MANDATE OF THE ACT. ONE MORE ASPECT HAD TO BE TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION .COURTS OF ARE OF VIEW THAT ONCE THE PROCEDURE IS COMPLETE,AS PROVIDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND A CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED GRANTING REGISTRATION TO THE TRUST OR INSTIT UTION, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CERTIFICATE IS A DOCUMENT EVIDENCING SATISFACTION ABOUT : (1) THE GE NUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AND (2) ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION.AS STATED EARLIER THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE OF FACTS IN THE YEARS 2006 AND 2009.SO,I N ABSENCE OF ANY NEW FACTOR DIT-E SHOULD NOT HAVE CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION.GROUNDS NO.2&3 ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE,WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT P ORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL IN STITUTE & ORS.(SUPRA)AND RELIED UPON BY THE DIT-E IN THAT MATTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALTERED THE M EMORANDUM AND IN PLACE OF SIX OBJECTS 14 OBJECTS WERE ADOPTED. IT WAS FOUND THAT IN THE NEW AMENDMENTS SOME AMENDMENTS WERE OF RELIGIOUS NATURE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE.IT FILED A WRI T PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.DISMISSING THE WRIT,THE HONBLE COURT HELD AS UNDER: REGISTRATION IS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO CHA RITABLE TRUSTS UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE WORDS OF THAT STATUTORY P ROVISION SHOW THAT IT APPLIES WHERE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION REMAIN THE SAME.HOWEVER , WHERE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, WHICH WERE THE BASIS OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION, ARE ALTERED AFTER SUCH GRANT OF REGISTRATION, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE REGISTRATION HAVING BEEN REMOVED BY A VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REGISTRATION WOULD NOT SURVIVE. IN A SITUATION WHERE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR IN STITUTION HAVE BEEN ALTERED WHOLESALE AFTER THE GRANT OF REGISTRAT ION AND INTIMATION OF THE ALTERATION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE COMMISSIONER (EMPHASIS BY US),THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORI TY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE REGISTRATION, WHICH WAS GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF A PARTICULAR REPRESENTATION, HELD OUT BY THE ASSESSEE NO LONGER SURVIVES OR HOLD S GOOD, WOULD NOT CALL FOR INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT IN EXERCISE OF ITS EQUITABLE AND DISCRETIONAR Y JURISDICTION. TO SUM UP, WE ARE UNABLE TO EXERCISE OUR DISCRETION TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO C ONTINUE TO UTILISE AND ENJOY THE REGISTRATION DESPITE THE WHOLESALE CHANGE IN THE OBJECTS WITHOUT GIVING ITS IMMEDIATE INTIMATION TO THE COMMISSIONER WE HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS AN D THE ALTERED OBJECTS OF THE PETITIONER IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ARE PRA CTICALLY THE SAME OR ARE CHARITABLE. PRIMA FACIE SUCH ISSUES ARE PURE QUESTIONS OF FACT (EMPHASIS BY US)PRIMA FACIE, WHEN A PERSON DELIBERATELY MAKES AN ALTERATION IN THE OBJECTS OR IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT THE ALTERATION HAS BEEN MADE BECAUSE SOME CHANGE IS REQUIRED. ALTERATIONS ARE NOT MADE FOR THE FUN OF IT. THUS THE PETITIONERS WILL T HEREFORE BE UNDER A HEAVY BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE SIMILARITY IF THEY WISH TO PRESS SUCH A PLEA. IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD DELETED A PORTION OF OBJECT ON THE ADVICE OF THE THEN CIT. SECONDLY, THE CHANGE WAS INTIMATED TO DIT-E.THIRDLY ,THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTINUING THE SIMILAR ACTIVITIES EVEN AFTER THE SO CALLED AMENDMENT.UNLIK E THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE & ORS.(SUPRA)NEW OBJECTS WERE ADDED TO THE EXISTING O BJECTS AND THUS THERE IS NO WHOLESALE ALTERATION OF OBJECTS. IN OUR OPINION FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER APPEAL ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE DIT-E. IN THE CASE OF BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDI A(SUPRA),THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS ABOUT BENEFITS AVAILABLE U/S.11 AND 13 OF THE ACT.I N THAT MATTER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INTIMATED THE CHANGES BROUGHT IN THE MEMORANDUM TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO.CONSIDRING THOSE FACTORS THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE .IN THE CASE BEFORE US,ALL THE FACTS WERE KNOWN TO THE DIT-E AS EARLY AS YEAR 2006.IN OUR OPINION F ACTS OF THAT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT 5 ITA NO. 6289/MUM/2009 LALA LAJPATRAI MEMORIAL TRUST CASE,HENCE ARE OF NO HELP. IN THE MATTER OF KARIMA NGALAM ONRIYA PENGAL SEMIPU AMAIPU LTD THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE TIME LIMIT FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION.IN SHORT BOTH THE CASES DO NOT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE BEFORE US. SO,AFTER CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DIT-E SHOULD HAVE GRANTED REGISTRA TION U/S.80G OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE YEAR 2009 ONWARDS. AS A RESULT,APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 1)2 1)2 1)2 1)2 () () () () 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 + ++ + ! ! ! !5) 5)5) 5) + ++ + ) ) ) ) 6 66 6 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH ,SEPTEMBER,2014 . '/ '/ '/ '/ + ++ + -. -. -. -. ' ' ' ' 7 77 7 8 8 8 8 12, )9 )9 )9 )9 , 201 4 + ++ + : :: : SD/- SD/- ( / JOGINDER SINGH) ( '# '# '# '# / RAJENDRA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ' ' ' ! ! ! ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8 /DATE: 12.09.2014. SK '/ '/ '/ '/ + ++ + &); &); &); &); <';.) <';.) <';.) <';.) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ = > , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / = > 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ;? &) , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 1 ' ;) ' ;) ' ;) ' ;) &) &)&) &) //TRUE COPY// '/ / BY ORDER, @ / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI