SRI MAMANIKUNNU MAHADEVI TEMPL,E, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The Court quashed the impugned orders dated March 24, 2023, and March 31, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue that a mistake had occurred in the issuance of these orders and notices. The operative direction was to quash the impugned orders and notices. No specific issue was left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sri Mamanikkunnu Mahadevi Temple, is an 'artificial juridical person' granted exemption under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The temple holds two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs): AAAJS4785N and AAWTS2249B. The impugned orders under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued for assessment years 2016-17 and 2015-16, respectively, in relation to PAN No. AAAJS4785N. The petitioner argues that the same entity has been issued two PANs, and while exemption was granted for one, reassessment proceedings were initiated for the other, despite it pertaining to the same income. The Revenue conceded that a mistake had occurred in issuing these orders and notices.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid when the assessee, an 'artificial juridical person', has been issued two PANs, and exemption was granted for one but reassessment proceedings were initiated for the other concerning the same income. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the issuance of two PANs to the same 'artificial juridical person' and initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 for one PAN while exemption was granted for the other, for the same income, was erroneous. The assessee relied on the fact that exemption under Section 12AA was granted. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its Standing Counsel, fairly conceded that a mistake had crept in while issuing the orders under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148 of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T [WP(C) Nos.12789/2023 and 14904/2022] The petitioner-trust
has been issued certificate under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), and thus it is exempted from payment of income tax on its income.
The petitioner has been issued order in Ext.P1 under Section 148A(d) and thereafter notice in Ext.P2 under Section 148 of the Act, by the 1st respondent. Such orders and notices issued for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2015-16 are under challenge in these writ petitions, respectively.
The petitioner had been granted exemption under Section 12AA as an “artificial juridical person” in respect of PAN No.AAAJS4785N. The petitioner has another PAN No.AAWTS2249B. The aforesaid notices as well as orders under Section 148A(d) have been passed in respect of PAN No.AAAJS4785N. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same “artificial juridical person” has been issued two Permanent Account Numbers and in respect of one PAN number, the petitioner has been granted exemption, but in respect of the other PAN number, for the same income the petitioner has been issued orders under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148 of the Act.
Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, fairly concedes that some mistake has been crept in while issuing orders under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148 of the Act, which are challenged in these writ petitions.
Considering the said stand on behalf of the Revenue, the present writ petitions are allowed and the impugned Ext.P1 orders dated 24.3.2023 & 31.3.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and Ext.P2 notices under Section 148 of the Act challenged in the respective writ petitions are hereby quashed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, in these writ petitions stand dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE jg
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
