Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.167 of 2011
BETWEEN
THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
AND
DEFENCE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, SITE OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, GANESH TEMPLE COMPLEX, AIRFORCE GOLDEN JUBILEE ENCLAVE, DEFENCE LAYOUT, VIDYARANMAYPURA, BANGALORE – 560 097. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.K. CHYTHANYA & SRI TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATES)
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 24.02.2011 PASSED IN ITA No.1777/BANG/2004, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA No.1777/BANG/2004, DATED 24/02/2011 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard.
The appeal was admitted to consider the following four substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order dated 16.05.2002 u/s 12AA of the Act to withdraw the registration granted u/s 12A(a) of the Act on 15.05.1985 despite the direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.24585/1991 in the case of Assessee and Madhya Pradesh
256 ITR 277 the Commissioner having inherent jurisdiction to do so?
Whether the Tribunal was correct in failing to record a finding on the issue that Commissioner having found that the assessee is a self help institution to help only members who purchase sites at the discretion of the managing committee without carrying on any charitable activity can continued to be granted registration u/s 12A(a) of the Act?
Whether the provisions of sub-section 3 to Section 12AA of the Act is clarificatory in nature and applicable to the pending matter herein?
Whether the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the Commissioner has no power to cancel the registration under Section 12A(a) once granted before the amendment Act under Sub-Section 3 to 12AA with effect from 1.10.2004 notwithstanding the provision of 21 of the General Causes(sic) Act, 1897.”
It is submitted that all the four substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GWALIOR) M.P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, GWALIOR, reported in (2018) 403 ITR 1 (SC).
Following the said judgment, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is disposed off.
SD/-
SD/- JUDGE
JUDGE