Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

DIT (Exemptions) vs. Khar Gymkhana (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 16, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/12AA(3): The DIT has no jurisdiction to cancel registration of a charitable institution on the ground that it is carrying on commercial activities which are in breach of the amended definition of "charitable purpose" in s. 2(15). Registration can be cancelled only if the activities of the trust are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with its objects. This is clarified by Circular No.21 of 2016

The High Court had to consider whether in view of amended Section 2(15) of the Act, restricting the definition “charitable purpose”, by excluding carrying on any trade, commerce and business in receipt of an amount in excess of Rs.25 lakhs would by itself entitle the Director of Income Tax to cancel a Registration under Section 12AA (3) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the cancellation of Registration under Section 12AA (3) of the Act done by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) by holding that cancellation of a registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act is permissible only when the activities of the trust/ institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with its objects. On appeal by the Department HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) It is evident from Circular No.21 of 2016 dated 27th May, 2016 that the amendment to the definition of charitable purpose by adding of the proviso, would not ipso facto give jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Income Tax to cancel the Registration under Section 12AA (3) of the Act. The jurisdiction to cancel the Registration would only arise if there is any change in the nature of activities of the institution. The above Circular clearly directs the authorities not to cancel the Registration of the charitable institution just because the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act comes into play as receipts are in excess of Rs.25 lakhs in a year. It also refers to Section 13(8) of the Act which provides that where the receipts on account of commercial activities is in excess of the limit of R.25 lacs provided in second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, then the Assessing Officer would deny the benefit of registration as a Trust for the subject Assessment Year while framing the Assessment.

(ii) The submission made on behalf of the Revenue that the Circular No.21 of 2016 would have only prospective effect in respect of Assessment made subsequent to the amendment under Section 2(15) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2016 is also not sustainable. The amendment in Section 2(15) of the Act brought about by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1st April, 2016, is essentially that where earlier the receipts in excess of Rs.25 lakhs on commercial activities would exclude it from the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ is now substituted by receipts from commercial activities in excess 20% of the total receipts of the institution. In the above view, Circular No.21 of 2016 directs the Officer of the Revenue not to cancel Registration only because the receipts on account of business are in excess of the limits in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act would also apply in the present case. The impugned order has held that cancellation of a Registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act, can only take place in case where the activities of trust or institution are not genuine and/or not carried on in accordance with its objects. The aforesaid Circular No.21 of 2016 is in line of the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order. The submission on behalf of the Revenue that the Trust is not genuine because it is hit by proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, is in fact, negatived by Circular No.21 of 2016. In fact, the above Circular No.21 of 2016 clearly provides that mere receipts on account of business being in excess of the limits in the proviso would not result in cancellation of Registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act unless there is a change in nature of activities of the institution. Admittedly, there is no change in nature of activities of the institution during the subject Assessment Year. The further submission on behalf of the Revenue that looking at the quantum of receipts on account of commercial activities, it is unlikely/ improbable that in the subsequent Assessment Years, the receipts would fall below Rs.25 lakhs and therefore, the Commissioner is entitled to cancel the Registration. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the Revenue is based not on facts as existing but on probability of future events. We are unable to accept the submission based on clairvoyance. Further, we are unable to understand what prejudice is caused to the Revenue since whenever the receipts on account of commercial activities is in excess of the limits provided in proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is mandated/ required to deny exemption under Section 11 of the Act as provided in Circular No.21 of 2016 dated 27th May, 2016. Accordingly, the issue stands covered in favour of the Revenue by virtue of Circular No.21 of 2016.

One comment on “DIT (Exemptions) vs. Khar Gymkhana (Bombay High Court)
  1. That is the reason why i took to writs under Article 226 r/w 227, as an advocate, i used to petition the court on behalf of my clients, whether the statute of the union or state is rightly drafted, if not either i get them set aside, or use doctrine of severability to cut the section from the statute; as i never ever trusted the statutory laws are invariably faulty, for one reason or the other.

    see how tax man intrude in charity laws; how tax man cancel the registration given by a charity commissioner, without tax man filing before charity commissioner his case against the offendere; tax man behavior is extremely arbitrary, and in fact hon court should have fined the taxman exemplarily for his extravagant arbitrary behavior, withi=out that you can never improve the tax man or the govt of india is my considered opinion.

    Kudos to judges on the bench.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Top