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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/170/2014HC KeralaKLHC01026736201414 October 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the reasons stated by the Tribunal in its order (Annexure A5) for recalling its earlier order were self-explanatory. The court found that as a result of the rectification application, the entire issue was to be reconsidered, and therefore, the Tribunal's decision to rehear the appeal was appropriate. The court concluded that the Tribunal's view did not suffer from any illegality justifying interference. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the recall order was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Mahatma Gandhi Charitable Society, is a Trust registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax withdrew this registration via an order dated 24.02.2011. The assessee appealed this order, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal in an order dated 16.11.2012. Subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification application (MA No. 02/COCH/2013) under Section 254(2) of the Act. The ITAT, by an order dated 08.02.2013, recalled its earlier order dated 16.11.2012, stating that the entire issue needed reconsideration. This appeal is filed against the ITAT's order recalling its previous decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal's order recalling its earlier order allowing the appeal, based on a rectification application, is legally sustainable? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the Tribunal, in its rectification order (Annexure A5), acknowledged that the activity of the trust might not come under general public utility, which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in recalling its earlier order and reconsidering the entire gamut of the issue to do justice between the parties. The assessee relied on the reasoning provided in Annexure A5. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment. The judgment states, "We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent." However, the specific arguments of the respondent are not detailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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.PANDALAI 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

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →