Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s Dera Sacha Sauda, a trust registered under Section 12AA since 2004, had its registration cancelled by the PCIT, Central, Gurgaon, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2016, invoking Section 12AB(4). This cancellation followed a special audit report and a reference from the AO pointing out irregularities under Sections 11, 12, and 13 of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the PCIT, Central, Gurgaon, lacked jurisdiction to cancel the registration, as per CBDT notifications and various ITAT pronouncements, only CIT (Exemptions) is competent. It further ruled that Section 12AB(4), which became effective from 01.04.2022, could not be applied retrospectively from 01.04.2016. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the PCIT (Central), Gurgaon, had the competent jurisdiction to cancel the registration granted under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 12AB(4), which came into effect from 01.04.2022, could be applied retrospectively to cancel registration from 01.04.2016.
Sections Cited
Section 12AA, Section 12AB, Section 12AB(4), Explanation to Section 12AB(4), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 127, Section 127(1), Section 127(2), Section 120, Section 10(23C)(vi), Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 13A, Section 13B, Section 2(7A), Section 132, Rule 17A, Rule 2C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
The assessee is in appeal against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Gurgaon (in short 'the PCIT') dated 27.12.2023 vide which registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act dated 13.12.2004 has been cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2016 by invoking the provisions of Section 12AB(4) of the Act. 2
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust M/s Dera Sacha Sauda is a Trust/Society created for charitable purposes and it was registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 13.12.2004. The case of the Trust was selected for scrutiny under CASS for assessment year 2018-19 and accordingly, assessment proceedings were initiated by Faceless Assessment Unit via e-proceedings by issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. It emerges out that case was referred to FT&TR Wing during the course of assessment proceedings and accordingly, it was centralized with DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh in view of relevant circulars/guidelines of the CBDT by passing an order under Section 127 dated 30.01.2023. It also emerges out that thereafter, case of the assessee Trust was referred to Special Audit in view of the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Act. Such reference was made after obtaining prior approval from Pr. CIT Central, Gurgaon. The Special Auditor has submitted his report and he pointed out some adverse inference as well as various irregularities in terms of Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act. The AO, thereafter made a reference as per second proviso of Section 3 143(3) to Pr. CIT for withdrawal of registration granted to the assessee under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. This reference was made on 24.03.2023. The ld. PCIT has gone through the details pointed out by the DCIT, Central Circle and issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.12.2023 inviting explanation of the assessee as to why its registration under Section 12AA granted vide order dated 13.12.2024 be not cancelled by exercising the powers under Section 12AB(4) of the Act.
1 It emerges out that assessee has filed detailed replies. Those have been considered by the ld. PCIT, Central Circle, and he passed the impugned order on 27.12.2023. The ld. PCIT has cancelled the registration of the assessee. The last paragraph of the impugned order read as under :
"
In view of the forgoing discussions, I am satisfied that the assessee trust i.e. M/s Dera Sacha Sauda has committed specified violation in terms of clause (a), (b), (c) & (e)(ii) of Explanation to Section 12AB(4) 'of the Act. Therefore, the registration granted u/s 12AA vide order dated 13.12.2004 is hereby cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2016 by invoking the provisions of Section 12AB(4) of the Act."
2 While impugning the order of the Pr. CIT dated 27.12.2023, assessee has taken 11 grounds alongwith sub- grounds. It also filed an application for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal. We take note of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee which read as under :
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2004 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions of the appellant and evidences placed on record and merely on surmises and conjectures and also without observing principles of natural justice.
That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.
That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming juri iction u/s 12AB and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) inter-alia for the reason that the reference made by Ld. AO under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) to Ld. PCIT dated 24.03.2023 is barred by limitation and is bad-in-law, illegal, void-ab-initio and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming juri iction u/s 12AB and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) inter-alia for the reason that the reference made by Ld. AO under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) to Ld. PCIT dated 24.03.2023 is bad-in-law, illegal, void-ab-initio and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
That having regard to facts and circumstance of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming juri iction u/s 12AB and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) inter-alia for the reason that the reference made by Ld. AO under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) to Ld. PCIT has been made without a valid Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of such reference so made which is mandatory as per CBDT circular no. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. 6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT in assuming juri iction u/s 12AB and in passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) without valid legal juri iction is bad-in-law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.
That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA that too with retrospective effect from 01.04.2016 is patently illegal, bad-in-law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act by inter-alia alleging that assessee has committed following specified violation in terms of clause (a), (b), (c) and (e)(ii) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions of the appellant and evidences placed on record and merely on surmises and conjectures and also without observing principles of natural justice: a. That property 'Tera Vas' and a property at Greater Kailash is allegedly being used for benefit of the author/sewaadar and thus, assessee trust has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (c) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. b. That assessee has allegedly contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and thus, allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (a) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. C. That assessee has purchased vehicles allegedly for personal use of the author of the trust and has allegedly contravened the provisions of section 13(2) and thus, allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (c) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. d. That land acquired by the assessee for cultivation purposes is allegedly not as per the object of the trust and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (b) of Explanation to section 12AB(A) of the Act. e. That assessee has allegedly diverted its canteen receipts to M/s Pure Departmental Store, alleged specified person u/s 13(3), and thus, allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (a) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. f. That separate books of accounts have not been maintained as per the provisions of section 11 (4 A) and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (c) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. g. That assessee has extended its activates outside India without approval is a contravention of section 1 1 of the Act thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (e)(ii) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. h. That assessee has gifted an immovable property to M/s Shah Satnamji Research & Development Foundation which has the same management/control as of assessee trust and therefore, allegedly, indirect benefit has been given to alleged specified entity and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (a) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. i. That operative of Dairy Farm and sale/purchase of livestock is not as per the object of the assessee trust and also no separate books of account have been made and thus, assessee has allegedly 5 committed specified violation in terms of clause (b) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. j. That expenditure incurred in criminal proceedings of the patron of the trust is clear violation of the objects of the trust and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (c) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act. k. That assessee is allegedly engaged in construction activities which is not incidental to the attainment of the its objects and further, no separate books of accounts have been maintained w.r.t to these construction activities and thus, assessee has allegedly committed specified violation in terms of clause (b) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act.
That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT in holding that assessee has committed specified violation in terms of clause (a), (b), (c) and (e)(ii) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act is bad-in-law, and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.
That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. POT in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act vide order dated 13A2.2004 and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) dated 27-12- 2023 is illegal, bad in law, void ab-initio and against the facts and circumstances of the case and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and barred by limitation also.
That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other."
3 Apart from the above grounds, the assessee sought permission to raise two additional grounds of appeal, namely; "
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference made by Ld. AO under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) to Ld. PCIT(Central) for passing order u/s 12AB(4) is bad in law inter-alia for the reason that the valid juri iction for passing the order u/s 12AB(4) lies with CIT(Exemptions) Chandigarh and not with Ld. PCIT(Central).
That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. P CIT (Central) in assuming juri iction u/s 12AB and passing the impugned order u/s 12AB(4) is without a valid juri iction and is bad- in law." 7
4 In support of its application for raising above grounds of appeal, it relied upon the following judgements : ii) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr., (2016) 389 ITR 0326 (P&H). opinion that the assessee's stand to agitate under these additional grounds of appeal are such which goes to basic issues vide which it is to be decided whether 1d. PCIT, Central Circle was having juri iction to pass the impugned order or not. Similarly, whether the 1d. PCIT, Central Circle could have invoked Section 12AB(4) with retrospective effect or not ? Considering their cumulative effect over sustainability of the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to admit both these additional grounds of appeal for decision on merit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC 8 submitted that assessee is a charitable Trust/Society. It was registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 13.12.2004. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has basically raised two fold of submissions on these additional grounds of appeal. In his first fold of submission, it was contended that Section 120 of the Income Tax Act empowers the CBDT to authorize the authority for exercising the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on an assignment to such authorities. In other words, Board will notify which authority will perform which work. He took us through Section 120 of the Income Tax Act and thereafter submitted that grant of registration as well as cancellation has been assigned by the Board to CIT (Exemptions). He drew our attention towards Notification No. 52 and 53 of 2014 issued on 22.10.2014. We will be taking cognizance of these Notifications while taking note of the order of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Aggarwal Vidhya Pracharni Sabha Vs PCIT (ITA No. 1308/Del/2023) decided on 08.01.2024 whose copy has been made available in the Paper Book on page No. 1 to 40. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal took note of these Notifications and we will be referring these Notifications. On the strength of Section 120 coupled with the Notification issued by the Board, ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasized that CIT (Exemptions) was the competent authority to cancel the registration granted under Section 12A. The powers exercised by the 10 PCIT in the present case is beyond his juri iction and therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. For buttressing his contention, he relied upon following orders of the ITAT whose copies have been placed on the record :
Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha vs PCIT, ITA No. 1308 /DEL/2023 dated 08.01.2024 (ITAT Del.)
Heart Foundation of India vs. CIT (Central), ITA 1524/Mum/2023 (Central) ITA 04-05/Jodh/2020 dated 25.01.2023, (ITAT Jodh.)
ITA688/JP/2019 dated 06.01.2021 (ITAT Jaipur)
M/s. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bangalore vs. PCIT(Central), ITA No.141/Bang/2024 dated 16.04.2024 (ITAT Bang.)
Laskhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs PCIT (Central-3) ITA 1803/Del/2024 dated 22.08.2024. 5. In his next fold of contentions, he submitted that ld. PCIT has cancelled the registration with the aid of Section 12AB(4) whereby new grounds have been assigned for empowering the authority to cancel the registration. If those contentions are present in a particular case, whether on the basis of these reasoning, a registration could be cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2016. In other words, the additional reasoning provided under Section 12AB was brought on the Statute Book w.e.f. 01.04.2022. Can with the help of these reasoning, registration be cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2016. In other words, whether this provision is applicable with 11 retrospective effect or not. He submitted that ITAT, Bangalore and Cuttack has considered this aspect and unanimously held that the provision is not applicable with retrospective effect. He further relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isthmian Steamship provision of Section 12AB sub-section (4) is not applicable with retrospective effect. Thus, according to the 1d. Counsel for the assessee, the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee on these preliminary issues. 12
On the other hand, 1d. CIT DR drew our attention towards Section 143 sub-section (3) of the Income Tax Act. On the strength of this, it has been contended by the 1d. CIT DR that second proviso to Section 143(3) empowers the AO to make a reference to the PCIT. Since in the hierarchy of the authorities, AO is subordinate to PCIT while assessing the income of the assessee. Therefore, it is but natural that reference would be made to PCIT as provided in the second proviso to Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Apart from his oral submission, he has filed a written note after
conclusion of the hearing and such note read as under : “The aforementioned case came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Bench on 05.03.2025. 2. The appellant assessee has taken an additional ground of appeal challenging the juri iction of the Ld. PCIT in cancelling the registration u/s 12AA. The appellant has contended that it is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)- CIT(E) - and not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - (PCIT), who was the competent authority to cancel the registration. The appellant also submitted copies of few judgments of the Hon'ble ITAT Benches in support of his contentions, including the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench, Delhi in the case of Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs. PCIT, Cen- 3, New Delhi in ITA No. 1803/Del/2024 pronounced on 22.08.2024. 3. In this regard, it is submitted that from the plain reading of the text of sections 12AB(4) and second Proviso to section 143(3), it is abundantly clear that the intent of the legislature was to provide the powers of cancellation of registration u/s 12AA to both the CIT(E) as well as the PCIT. This is because the words 'Principal Commissioner of Income Tax' have been used in marked distinction to the words 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)' in both the sections. It is pertinent to mention here that the scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for only the Commissioner rank officers to hold the charge of Exemptions. The Income Tax Act, 1961 nowhere provides for a Principal Commissioner rank officer to hold the charge of Exemptions. This would 13 evidently imply that other than the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), the legislature in its wi om has decided to endow other officers also - viz Principal Commissioners of Income Tax, who are higher in rank to the Commissioner (Exemptions) and are not holding the charge of Exemptions with the authority to cancel the registration under Section 12AA of the Act.
In support of the above contentions, the undersigned is relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society Vs. PCIT - 149 taxmann.com 227 (copy enclosed). The registration cancelled by the Ld. PCIT has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bench in the said case.
In the latest judgment dated 02.04.2025 of the Hon'ble ITAT Dehradun Bench, New Delhi rendered in the case of M/s Sri Krishan Educational Trust Vs. DGIT (Inv) - ITA No. 4092/DDN/2015 (copy enclosed), the Hon'ble Bench has categorically observed vide para 4 of the judgment that the prescribed authority for granting the approval or cancelling the approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). It shall be pertinent to mention here that although the said judgment has been rendered in the context of section 10(23C)(vi), but by drawing a parallel analogy, the intention of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench is extendable to the provisions of the registration u/s 12AA as well. This is because the schemes of sections 10(23C)(vi) and 12AA are the same and the words used in section 10(23C)(vi) are the same as in section 12AB(4), i.e. both the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) are competent to cancel the registration under both the respective sections when a reference is received from the assessing officer under second Proviso to section 143(3) of the Act. The text and the content of the 15th proviso to section 10(23C) is the same as that of section 12 AB(4). To augment my contention, the relevant 15th Proviso of section 10(23C)(vi) is reproduced below:
"Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (via) is approved or provisionally approved under the said clause and subsequently - (a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence of one or more specified violations during any previous year'; or (b) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has received a reference from the Assessing Officer under the second proviso to sub- section (3) of section 143 for any previous year; or..........." Furthermore, the judgment rendered in the case of Sri Krishan Educational Trust (supra) is the latest judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, New 14 Delhi and shall prevail over the earlier judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi which have been relied upon by the appellant assessee. It will also not be out of place to state that the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs. PCIT, Cen-3, New Delhi, so heavily relied upon by the assessee, has been challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (screenshot attached as evidence).
Thus, when there are contradictory decisions of the coordinate Benches of the Hon'ble ITAT on the impugned issue, it shall be prudent to await the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Even otherwise, the latter decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi shall prevail over the earlier decisions rendered by the coordinate Benches of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi as already argued above.
It is therefore, humbly submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the juri iction of the PCIT in cancelling the registration u/s 12 AA, is without any basis and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.”
1 He made reliance upon two orders of the ITAT namely, taxmann.com 227 and M/s Sri Krishan Educational Trust Vs DG of Income Tax (Investigation) Lucknow (ITA 4092/DDN/2015). Copies of both these decisions have been placed on record by the 1d. CIT DR.
We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 120 has a direct bearing on the controversy, therefore, we deem it appropriate to take note of this Section which read as under : "Juri iction of income-tax authorities.
(1) Income-tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as the Board may issue for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of the other income-tax authorities who are subordinate to it. 15 Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any income-tax authority, being an authority higher in rank, may, if so directed by the Board, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the income- tax authority lower in rank and any such direction issued by the Board shall be deemed to be a direction issued under sub-section (1). (2) The directions of the Board under sub-section (1) may authorise any other income-tax authority to issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of the other income- tax authorities who are subordinate to it. (3) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board or other income-tax authority authorised by it may have regard to any one or more of the following criteria, namely :— (a) territorial area; (b) persons or classes of persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,— (a) authorise any Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board; (b) empower the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer by or 471 of 801 under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases, shall be exercised or performed by an Additional Commissioner or an Additional Director or a Joint Commissioner or a Joint Director, and, where any order is made under this clause, references in any other provision of this Act, or in any rule made thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director by whom the powers and functions are to be exercised or performed under such order, and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of the Joint Commissioner shall not apply. (5) The directions and orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) may, wherever considered necessary or appropriate for the proper management of the work, require two or more Assessing Officers (whether or not of the same class) to exercise and perform, concurrently, the powers and 16 functions in respect of any area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases; and, where such powers and functions are exercised and performed concurrently by the Assessing Officers of different classes, any authority lower in rank amongst them shall exercise the powers and perform the functions as any higher authority amongst them may direct, and, further, references in any other provision of this Act or in any rule made thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such higher authority and any provision of this Act requiring approval or sanction of any such authority shall not apply. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any direction or order issued under this section, or in section 124, the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that for the purpose of furnishing of the return of income or the doing of any other act or thing under this Act or any rule made thereunder by any person or class of persons, the income-tax authority exercising and performing the powers and functions in relation to the said person or class of persons shall be such authority as may be specified in the notification.”
A perusal of sub-clause (1) to (3) would indicate that Board would issue directions authorizing the authorities to exercise the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on them by way of that Notification. While issuing Notification, Board would keep in mind four criteria mentioned in sub-clause (3) of this Section. In other words, the authorities under the Income Tax Act would exercise powers according to the juri iction vested in them by the CBDT. In exercise of this power, Board has issued Notification No. 52 and 53 of 2014 whereby Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Chandigarh was authorized to grant registration under Section 12AA as well as cancel such registration. The identical issue was considered by ITAT 17 Delhi Bench in the case of Aggarwal Vidhya Pracharni Sabha Vs PCIT, ITA 1308/Del/2023. Copy of this decision is available on page No. 1 to 40. In this case also, PCIT, Central, Gurgaon has exercised the powers under Section 12AB sub-section (4) and cancelled the registration granted to the assessee under Section 12AA. The Tribunal has considered all attendant circumstances and thereafter held that PCIT, Central Circle, Gurgaon was not competent to cancel the registration. The ITAT took into consideration Notification No. 52 and 53 as well as the order passed under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Notifications dated 22.10.2014 are being taken note in paragraph No. 12 page No.17 to 21 of this order of the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal has also considered whether Section 12AB(4) brought on the Statute Book w.e.f. 01.04.2022 could be applied with retrospective effect. Both these issues have been examined by the Tribunal exhaustively. The Tribunal also took into consideration orders of other Co-ordinate Benches. We take note of the discussion made by the Tribunal on these issues which read as under :
"
After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the submissions, it comes up that the admitted case of the Revenue is that there ==End of OCR dump==" }, "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, M/s Dera Sacha Sauda, a trust registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, had its registration cancelled by the PCIT under Section 12AB(4) of the Act. The cancellation was based on alleged violations of specified provisions, which the assessee contested. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT (Central), Gurgaon, lacked the juri iction to cancel the registration. The authority to cancel registration under Section 12AA/12AB lies with the CIT (Exemptions). Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Section 12AB(4), which came into effect from April 1, 2022, could not be applied retrospectively to the assessment year 2016. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 12AA", "Section 12AB(4)", "Section 143(3)", "Section 127", "Section 10(23C)(vi)", "Section 11", "Section 12", "Section 13", "Section 13(1)(c)", "Section 13(2)", "Section 11(4A)" ], "issues": "Whether the PCIT (Central), Gurgaon, had the juri iction to cancel the assessee's registration under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, and whether Section 12AB(4) could be applied retrospectively." } }