COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I LDH vs. SHRI VISHAV NAMDHARI SANGAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/239/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099315201230 January 2013Bench: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT's order setting aside the CIT's order was based on sound reasoning. The assessee had a valid exemption on October 1, 2010, when Section 80G of the Act was amended to dispense with periodic renewal of exemptions. This statutory change was clarified by CBDT Circular No. 5/2010 and Circular No. 7/2010. The court reasoned that once the statute grants perpetuity to exemptions under Section 80G(5), such exemption cannot be withdrawn without issuing a show-cause notice in terms of the statutory provisions and prescribed legal manner. As no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana, is appealing an order dated May 17, 2012, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had set aside an order dated June 16, 2011, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). The assessee, Shri Vishav Namdhari Sangat, Ludhiana, a charitable trust, had its exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, valid until March 31, 2010. The assessee applied for renewal on December 27, 2010, but withdrew the application on February 4, 2011. Despite this, the CIT withdrew the exemption. The ITAT's decision was based on the understanding that approvals granted under Section 80G(5) continue in perpetuity as per CBDT Circular No. 5/2010 and Circular No. 7/2010.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the CIT's order by relying on the assessee's contention that approval granted under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act continues in perpetuity, as per CBDT Circular No. 5/2010? (Question of law) 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in not appreciating that the CIT was within his rights to withdraw the exemption upon finding that the trust's activities were not charitable, even if the assessee's petition could not be rejected based on guidelines in paragraph 5 of CBDT Circular No. 7/2010? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that once an approval is granted under Section 80G(5), it continues in perpetuity as per CBDT Circular No. 5/2010, which was clarified by Circular No. 7/2010. The statutory provisions, as amended, dispensed with periodic renewal. Therefore, the CIT could not withdraw the exemption without following due process. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in relying on the perpetuity of exemption as per the circulars. They argued that the CIT was justified in withdrawing the exemption if the trust's activities were found to be non-charitable, notwithstanding the circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 239 of 2012 -- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 239 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.01.2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ...Appellant versus Shri Vishav Namdhari Sangat, Ludhiana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal) in ITA No. 805/CHD/2011 holding that the approval once granted to the assessee under Section 80G(5) of the Act shall continue in perpetuity as per circular No. 5 dated 03.06.2010 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short 'CBDT'). Our attention has been drawn to circular No. 7 of 2010 issued by CBDT wherein the circular issued earlier has been clarified and reiterated. The Revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order of CIT relying upon the assessee's version that the approval once granted u/s 80(G)(5) of I.T Act shall continue in perpetuity as per Circular No. 5/2010?

ITA No. 239 of 2012 -- (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the ITAT was justified in not appreciating that the CIT was well within his right to withdrawn the exemption on finding that the activities of the trust were not charitable even though the petition of the assessee could not be rejected keeping in view the guidelines as mentioned in para 5 of Circular No. 7/2010 dated 27.10.2010?” The assessee was granted exemption under Section 80(G) of the Act being the charitable trust. Such exemption was valid up to 31st March 2010. The assesee filed an application for renewal of exemption on 27.12.2010 which was withdrawn on 04.02.2011. It appears such request was withdrawn as by Finance Act No. 02 of 2009 and the Circular No. 5 of 2010, it was made explicit that the existing exemptions granted Section 80(G) of the Act as on 1.10.2010 would continue till perpetuity. But still the Commissioner of Income Tax withdrew the exemption vide order dated 16.06.2011. It is said order which has since been set aside by the Tribunal. We find that the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of Commissioner of Income tax is based on sound reasoning. The asseesse had valid exemption on 1.10.2010 when the provisions of Section 80G of the Act were amended so as to dispense the periodic renewal of the exemptions. Such statutory provisions were clarified by Circular No. 5 of 2010 and Circular No.7 of 2010 issued by CBDT. Once the statute has given perpetuity to the exemptions granted under Section 80(G)(5) of the Act, the same could not be withdrawn without issuing show cause notice in terms of the statutory provisions in the manner prescribed by law.

ITA No. 239 of 2012 -- In view of the said fact, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA)

JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI )

JUDGE January 30, 2013 G.Arora

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →