MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY, TVPM V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TVPM

ITA/170/2014

AI Insights

The case involves the Mahatma Gandhi Charitable Society, a Trust registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, which had its registration withdrawn by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Trust appealed this decision, which was initially successful. However, seeking further rectification, the Trust filed an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, leading to the Tribunal recalling its earlier order and deciding to rehear the appeal. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed the Trust's subsequent appeal against this decision, agreeing with the Tribunal's approach to reassess the matter comprehensively.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755720 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI; S HEMALATHA
• Keywords: General Public Utility; Income tax appeal; Rectification; Trust
• Section: 254(2); 12AA; 12AA(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/22ND ASWINA, 1936 ITA.No. 170 of 2014 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.A.NO.02/COCH/2013 IN ITA 250/COCH/2011 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 08-02-2013 APPELLANT(S): ------------------------ MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY, TVPM T.C. VIII/52, LAKSHMI VIHAR, THIRUMALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. K.R. PANDALAI. BY ADVS.SRI.KMV.P ANDALAI SMT.S.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10- 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA NO.170/14 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER C.NO.AAATM4153E/ 312/ 2/2010-11 DT 24.2.11 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ITA NO.250/COCH/2011 DT 16.11.12 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF M.A.NO.02/COCH/2013 DT 12.12.12 FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER PASSED IN M.A.NO.02/COCH/2013 BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 8.2.13. //True Copy// PA to Judge Rp ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ. =============================== Income Tax Appeal No. 170 of 2014 ========================= Dated this the 14th day of October, 2014 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The appellant is a Trust registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. That registration was withdrawn by Annexure A1 order issued under Section 12AA(3). Appeal was filed against Annexure A1 order, which was allowed by the Tribunal by Annexure A3 order. However, the appellant sought rectification of Annexure A3 order by filing Annexure A4 application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. On Annexure A4 application, the Tribunal passed Annexure A5 holding thus; “4. Now this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that if the activity of the taxpayer trust would not come under general public utility, this would go to the root of the matter, therefore, the entire gamut of issue has to be reconsidered in the light of the submission made by the ld.counsel for the taxpayer. Therefore, to appreciate the facts in a better manner and to do justice between the parties, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the order of this Tribunal dated 16.11.2012 needs to be recalled. Accordingly, by keeping the interest of justice in ITA No.170/14 : 2 : mind, the order of this Tribunal dated 16.11.2012 is hereby recalled”. Accordingly, the appeal was posted afresh. It is challenging Annexure A5 order, this appeal is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. In our view, the reasons stated in para 4 of Annexure A5 order are self explanatory. As a result of the rectification sought, the entire gamut of the issue was to be reconsidered. Therefore, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to rehear the appeal itself. This view taken by the Tribunal, according to us, does not suffer from any illegality justifying interference. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge "