COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA vs. SARLABEN BHANSALI CHARITIES TRUST
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was correct and followed a previous judgment where the revenue's appeal on a similar issue was dismissed. Therefore, the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue were answered against them.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against an ITAT order that allowed the assessee's case regarding cancellation of registration. The ITAT decision was based on a previous ruling that Section 12AA(3) is applicable only from assessment year 2011-12.
What were the issues?
Whether the ITAT erred in holding that Section 263 action cannot be taken after cancellation of registration, and whether cancellation of registration can be made retrospectively without considering the specific section under which it was granted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 263,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 12AA,Section 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD-45 IA No. GA/1/2018 (OLD No. GA/1249/2018) In ITAT/176/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA VERSUS SARLABEN BHANSALI CHARITIES TRUST BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE Date : 7th January, 2022 Appearance :-
Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. … For Respondent
The Court : This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 30th November, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 663 & 76/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:
2 (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata has erred in law in holding that the action under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be taken subsequent to cancellation of registration for the year when the cancellation order was not available to the Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata has erred in law in holding that the cancellation of registration cannot be made with effect from April 01, 2009 without considering the fact that in this case registration was granted under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The Tribunal had allowed the assessee’s case following the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax(exemption) Vs. Mukesh Bhansali Charities Trust in ITA allowed the assessee’s appeal following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mukesh Bhansali Charities Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(exemption), ITA No.
3 1250/Kol./2016 dated 9th June, 2017 wherein the Tribunal upheld circular No. 1 of 2011, dated 6th April, 2011 issued by the CBDT and held that Section 12AA(3) is applicable only from the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue had filed appeal before this Court in the case of Mukesh Bhansali Charities Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(exemption) in ITAT No. 333 of 2017 and by judgment dated 11th March, 2019 the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. Thus, we find that the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are covered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. With the dismissal of the appeal, the stay application(IA No. GA/1/2018, Old No.GA/1249/2018) also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.) SN/mg AR(CR)
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026