M/s Guru Nanak Charitable Trust, Ludhiana V. CIT-I, Ludhiana

ITA 984/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63987 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 984/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S GURU NANAK CHARITABLE TRUST, VS THE CIT-1, MULLANPUR DAKHA MANDI, LUDHIANA DISTT. LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAATG0614J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 25.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.10.2012 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT-I, LUDHIANA DATED 26.09.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN WITHDRAW ING THE EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) ALREADY GRANTED TO THE APPELLA NT SOCIETY. 2. THAT THE ID. CIT -I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN GIVING HIS FINDINGS THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY DOES NOT FULFILL THE CON DITIONS NECESSARY 2 FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 11AA(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THEREBY REJECTING THE APP LICATION OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY FOR ALLOWING TO CONTINUE EXEM PTION U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE APPLICATION U/S 80G(5) HAS BEEN REJECTED AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND OUR DETAILE D SUBMISSIONS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT-I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN NOT CONS IDERING THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS OLD ONE AND IS REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES ACT. THE INSTITUTION IS ALSO DULY REGISTERED U/S 12 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HAS ALSO BEEN GRANTED EXEM PTION U/S 80G(5) NUMBER OF TIMES AND, THUS, GENUINENESS STAND S ESTABLISHED. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT-I, LUDHIANA HAS FAILED TO CONSIDE R THE FACT THAT IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 5 DATED 30/06/2010 OF C ENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, THE EXEMPTION ALREADY GRANTED U/S 80G IS DEEMED TO BE IN PERPETUITY AND, THEREFORE, THERE WA S NO JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S 80G AND, THUS, REJECTION OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) WAS NOT WARRANTED . 6. THAT THE CIT-I HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WER E FREQUENT ADDITIONS IN THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY IN ORDER TO CARRY ON THE CHARITABLE JOBS MORE EFFECTIVELY AND A LSO, PARTICULARLY, AT THE SUGGESTION OF INCOME TAX DEPAR TMENT ITSELF, CERTAIN CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE BYLAWS BY VIRTUE O F LETTER, DATED 27.12.2005 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD II (1), LUDHIANA AND, THUS, THE FINDING OF THE CIT-I IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE. 7. THAT ALL SUCH CHANGES WERE GOT REGISTERED AND AFTER SUCH CHANGES, THE EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) WAS GRANTED BY THE DEPARTM ENT AND, THUS, ONCE ON THE SAME BASIS, A PARTICULAR DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5), THEN ON TH E PRINCIPLES 3 OF CONSISTENCY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT-I IS AGAINST T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. NOT WITHSTANDING THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT IN NOT ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G PRIN CIPLE OF CONSISTENCY HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED AS PER THE DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BERGER PA INTS LTD. VS CIT REPORTED AT 266 ITR 99 (SC) 2004 AND WHICH DECI SION HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT WITH CIT, PATIALA ON 27.02.1992. EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO GRANTED UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 V IDE ORDER DATED 26.5.2008. A FRESH APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF EXEM PTION U/S 80G WAS FILED ON 14.3.2011. THIS APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY LD. COMMISSIONER MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS CHANGE IN THE TRUSTEES. THE TRUST HAS BEEN CHANGED AND ASSESSEE IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER THE TRUST DEED ACT BUT IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETYS ACT. THESE OBJECTIONS WERE SU MMARIZED IN PARA 14 OF THE ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, BESIDES THE MAIN ISSUE OF ANOMALY IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE APPLICANT AS A TRUST AND A SOCIETY AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, IT IS CONCLUDED: - (I) THE APPLICANT HAD DISTURBED ITS AIMS & OBJECTS AND RULES & REGULATIONS WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE LEGAL PRO CEDURE AS PRESCRIBED EITHER IN TRUST LAW OR SOCIETY REGIST RATION ACT, 1860. (II) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/VOUCHERS CALLED FOR HAVE NO T BEEN PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION [ORDER SHEET DATED 07.09.2011 AND 22.09.2011]. 4 (III) THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED VARIOUS IRREGU LARITIES AS ABOVE. (IV) IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, MENTIONED SUPRA FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE APPLICANT ENTITY. THERE IS ALWAYS A SCOPE FOR DISCO VERY OF FACTS, WHICH MAY REQUIRE NEW DECISIONS UNDER AN EVO LVING INCOME TAX STATUTE, WHICH IS NOT STATIC. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IRREGULARITIES AND OBJECTIO NS, THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) WAS REJECTED. 5. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF BHOLE BHANDARI CHARITABLE TRUST, LUDHIA NA VS CIT-I (ITA NO. 140/CHD/2012). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BASICALLY EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) WAS ORDINARILY REQUIRED TO BE RENEWED FROM TIME TO TIME. HOWEVER, IT WAS FELT BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THIS UNNECESSARILY PUTS VARIOUS CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS TO HARDSHIP AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROVI SO TO CLAUSE (VI) OF SECTION 80G(5) HAS BEEN OMITTED BY THE LEGISLATURE W.E.F. 1.10.2009 BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT I T HAS BEEN CLARIFIED IN THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS REPORTED AT 31 4 ITR 193 (STATUTE) THAT AFTER THE OMISSION OF THE PROVISIONS, THE EXEM PTIONS GRANTED U/S 80G(5) WOULD OPERATE IN PERPETUITY. THEREFORE, IF THE ASSE SSEE HAS WRONGLY MADE AN APPLICATION AFTER OMISSION OF THIS PROVISO, THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS REQUIRED TO PASS THE ORDER IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED P ROVISIONS AND SUCH APPLICATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE IGNORED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR WHILE STRONGLY SUPPORT ING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF ASSOCIATION OF ADVOCACY AND LEGAL 5 INITIATIVES VS CIT-1, LUCKNOW REPORTED IN (2011) 13 0 ITR 573 (LUCK.), IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT CIT WOULD HAVE POWER TO WI THDRAW THE EXEMPTION U/S 293C, THEREFORE, THIS ORDER SHOULD BE TREATED AS W ITHDRAWAL ORDER. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF BHOLE BHANDARI IN ITA NO. 140/CHD/2012. THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 17.5.2012 MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION OF ADVOCACY AND LEGAL INITIATIVES VS CIT-I, LUCKNO W (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 7 IS AS UNDER:- 7. SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSU E IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, LUCKNOW A BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR ADVOCACY AND LEGAL INITIATIVES V CIT-I, LUCKNOW REP ORTED IN (2011) 130 ITD 573 (LUCK). WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE , THE ITAT LUCKNOW A BENCH HELD AS UNDER :- 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS REGISTERED WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR, LUCKNOW, HAVI NG REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT ALSO WHI CH HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LUCKNOW VIDE ORDER DATED 10-2-2010. THE ASSESSEE WA S ALSO GRANTED APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G(5)( VI ) OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 10-3-2000 WHICH WAS VALID TILL 31-3-200 3 AND LATER ON RENEWAL OF THE APPROVAL UNDER THE SAID SEC TION WAS GRANTED VIDE ORDER DATED 9-9-2003 FROM 1-4-2003 TO 31-3- 2006, AGAIN VIDE ORDER DATED 7-12-2006 FROM 1-4-200 6 TO 31- 3-2008 AND FINALLY VIDE ORDER DATED 16-9-2008 FROM 1-4-2008 TO 31-3-2010 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- I, LUCKNOW. THE COPIES OF THE SAID ORDERS ARE PLACED A T PAGES 41, 40 AND 39 RESPECTIVELY OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. EARLIER AS PER PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE ( VI ) TO SUB- SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G, THE APPROVAL WAS TO BE GRANTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN ACCORDANCE WI TH RULES 6 PRESCRIBED IN RULE 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1 962 AND AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80G(5)( VI ) OF THE A CT, THE APPROVAL WAS TO BE RENEWED FROM TIME TO TIME. HOWEV ER, CONSIDERING THE HARDSHIP, THE LEGISLATURE IN ALL IT S WISDOM HAS SOUGHT TO OMIT THIS PROVISO ON 1-10-2009 VIDE I TS FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009. THEREFORE NOW APPROVAL ONCE GRAN TED SHALL CONTINUE TO BE VALID IN PERPETUITY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UP TO 31-3-201 0, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OMISSION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80G(5)( VI ) OF THE ACT VIDE FINANCE (NO. 2 ) ACT, 2009, THE APPROVAL ONCE GRANTED SHALL CONTINUE TO B E VALID IN PERPETUITY. THE MEMO EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN F INANCE (NO. 2) BILL, 2009 AS REPORTED IN 314 ITR 193 (ST.) AT PAGE 194 READS AS UNDER : 'THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST DAY OF AP RIL, 2009 AND SHALL ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ONLY. FURTHER AS PER CLAUSE ( VI ) OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE INSTITUTIONS O R FUNDS TO WHICH THE DONATIONS ARE MADE HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE RULES PRESCRIBED IN RULE 11AA OF THE INCOME-TAX RUL ES, 1962. THE PROVISO TO THIS CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT ANY APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHALL HAVE EFFEC T FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS, NOT EXCEEDING FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE APPROV AL. DUE TO THIS LIMITATION IMPOSED ON THE VALIDITY OF S UCH APPROVALS, THE APPROVED INSTITUTIONS OR FUNDS HAVE TO BEAR THE HARDSHIP OF GETTING THEIR APPROVALS RENEWED FRO M TIME TO TIME. THIS IS UNDULY BURDENSOME FOR THE BONA FID E INSTITUTIONS OR FUNDS AND ALSO LEADS TO WASTAGE OF TIME AND RESOURCES OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATION IN RENEWING SUC H APPROVALS IN A ROUTINE MANNER. THEREFORE, IT IS PROPOSED TO OMIT THE PROVISO TO CL AUSE (VI ) OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G TO PROVIDE THAT THE APPROVAL ONCE GRANTED SHALL CONTINUE TO BE VALID IN PERPETUITY. FURTHER, THE COMMISSIONER WILL ALSO HAV E THE POWER OF WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL IF THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH INSTITUTION O R FUND ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTION OR FUND. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST DAY OF OCT OBER, 2009. ACCORDINGLY, EXISTING APPROVALS EXPIRING ON O R AFTER 7 1ST OCTOBER, 2009 SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN 'EXT ENDED IN PERPETUITY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY WITHDRAWN. HOWEVE R, IN CASE OF APPROVALS EXPIRING BEFORE 1ST OCTOBER, 2009 , THESE WILL HAVE TO BE RENEWED AND ONCE RENEWED THESE SHAL L CONTINUE TO BE VALID IN PERPETUITY, UNLESS SPECIFIC ALLY WITHDRAWN.' 11. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE AP PROVAL ONCE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 80G(5)( VI )OF THE ACT SHALL CONTINUE IN PERPETUITY. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CBDT ISSUED ITS CIRCULAR NO. 5 BEING 'EXPLANATORY CIRCULAR FOR FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009' AND PARA 29.7 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR READS AS UNDER : '29.7 APPLICABILITY. THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST OCTOBER 2009. ACCORDINGLY, EXISTING APPROVALS EXPIRING ON OR AFTE R 1ST OCTOBER, 2009 WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXTENDED IN PERPETUITY UNLESS SPECIALLY WITHDRAWN. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF APPROVALS EXPIRING BEFORE 1ST OCTOBER, 2009, THE SE WILL HAVE TO BE RENEWED AND ONCE RENEWED THESE SHAL L CONTINUE TO BE VALID IN PERPETUITY, UNLESS SPECIFIC ALLY WITHDRAWN.' 12. THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE AND EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORANCE OR INADVERTENTLY FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL, THE CIT WAS REQUIRED TO DE CIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED PROVISIONS. AS REGAR DS TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THE PROVISIONS CONT AINED IN SECTION 293C OF THE ACT ENABLES THE CIT TO WITHDRAW APPROVAL IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SAID SECTION HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-10 -2009 I.E., FROM THE DATE ON WHICH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80G(5) ( LVI ) HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 293C READ AS UNDER : '293C. WHERE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE BOARD OR AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY, WHO HAS BEEN CONFERRED UPO N THE POWER UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT TO GRANT ANY APPROVAL TO ANY ASSESSEE, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE BOARD OR SUCH AUTHORITY MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT A PROVISION TO WITHDRAW SUCH APPROVAL HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR IN SUCH PROVISION, WITHDR AW SUCH APPROVAL AT ANY TIME : PROVIDED THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR BOARD OR INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY SHALL, AFTER GIVING A REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST THE PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL TO THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED, AT ANYTIME, 8 WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS F OR DOING SO. 13. FROM THE PROVISO ATTACHED TO THE SECTION 293C OF THE ACT, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT EVEN IF ANY INCOME-TA X AUTHORITY WANTS TO WITHDRAW APPROVAL, HE SHALL ISSU E A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AGAINST THE PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL T O THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED AND AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL WITHDRAW APPROVAL AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR DOING SO. THE USE OF THE WORD 'SHALL' IN THE AFORESAID PROVISO MAKES IT MANDATORY FOR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO ISSUE A SHOW-CAUSE NO TICE TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, I N THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTA INED IN SECTION 293C OF THE ACT ENABLES THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX TO WITHDRAW APPROVAL. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN WITHDRAWING APPROVA L ONCE GRANTED BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE IN ALL ITS WISDOM H AS SOUGHT TO OMIT THIS PROVISO TO SECTION 80G(5)( VI ) OF THE ACT AND AFTER OMISSION OF THE SAID PROVISO, THE APPROVAL ON CE GRANTED SHALL CONTINUE TO BE VALID IN PERPETUITY UN LESS AND UNTIL A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE IS ISSUED BY THE CONCERNE D CIT SHOWING HIS INTENTION TO WITHDRAW ALREADY GRANTED S UCH APPROVAL. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANCE CASE, THE CIT WI THOUT ISSUING ANY SUCH NOTICE HAS WITHDRAWN APPROVAL. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ACCORDINGLY APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G(5) OF THE ACT ALREADY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE SHALL CONTINUE UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CONCER NED AUTHORITY TAKES APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED 8. THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT AFTER AMENDMENT, THE EXEMPTION U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT WOULD OPERATE IN PERPETUITY AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF AMENDED PROVISION S. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR THAT THIS ORDER ITSELF SHOULD BE TREATED AS WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 293C, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 9 293C. WHERE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE BOARD OR AN INC OME-TAX AUTHORITY, WHO HAS BEEN CONFERRED UPON THE POWER UN DER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT TO GRANT ANY APPROVAL TO ANY ASSESSEE, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE BOARD OR SUCH AUTHORITY MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT A PROVISION TO WITHDRAW SUCH APPROVAL HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY PR OVIDED FOR IN SUCH PROVISION, WITHDRAW SUCH APPROVAL AT ANY TIME : PROVIDED THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR BOARD OR INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY SHALL, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHO WING CAUSE AGAINST THE PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL TO THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED, AT A NYTIME, WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. ] 9. THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SUCH WITHDRAWALS CA N BE DONE ONLY AFTER ISSUING A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL AND THEN AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY, THE ORDER CAN BE PASSED ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON THE BASIS OF APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER WRONG IMPRESSION WITHOUT NOTICING THE AMENDED PROVISIONS AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT THE TREATED AS O RDER FOR WITHDRAWAL. 10. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF CIT AND HOLD THAT APPROVAL U/S 80G(5) OF THE ACT ALREADY GR ANTED BY THE DEPARTMENT TILL UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 TO THE ASSESSEE SHALL CONTINUE UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TAKES APPROPRIATE ACT ION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2012 10 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR