Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
214-2 IN TH
COMMISSIO
M/S PUNJAB CORAM: H
Present M
M M
* SANJEEV PR
L submits that t (hereinafter re in an appeal authority has 12 of the Inc invoking pow 2. I Assessee und the Commissi Section 12AA therefore, the HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR I D ONER OF INCOME TAX (EXE
V B CRICKET ASSOCIATION (P HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Sen for the appellant/Income Tax Dep Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocatesfo *** RAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellan the Income Tax Appellate Tribu eferred to as the “ITAT”), vide i filed by the appellant/revenue no jurisdiction to cancel the re come Tax Act, 1961 (hereinaft wers under Section 12-AA(3) of t In this case, the registration w der Section 12-A of the Act vid ioner of Income Tax, Chandiga A(3) of the Act, which came i said powers have been exercised
AB AND HARYANA AT RH ITA-166-2016(O&M) Date of Decision:12.08.2024 EMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH
...…...Appellan V/s. PCA), MOHALI
….....Responden
NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH nior Standing counsel partment. and or the respondent-Assessee. nt/revenue vehemently argued an unal, Division Bench, Chandigar its order dated 19.10.2015 passe e, has erred in holding that th egistration granted under Sectio ter referred to as “the Act”) b the Act. was granted to the respondent de order dated 20.06.2012, whil arh, conferred with powers unde into force w.e.f. 01.06.2010 an d retrospectively which could no
nt nt d rh d he n y t- le er d ot Suresh Kumar 2024.08.28 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-166-2016
have been do Court in ITA Vs. Young Sc as raised by th relying on th Society vs Ch 594 and Pine others (2010) authorities to was only pro extract the ord “1 1 w C ju a F r to a tr th 0 1 6(O&M) Page 2 of 3
one in view of the judgment d TA-21-2011 titled as The Comm cholar’s Educational Society, B he appellant/revenue stands final he judgements passed in the ca hief Commissioner of Income-T egrove International Chairtable 0) 327 ITR (P&H)holding tha cancel the registration granted u spective and could not be appl der is reproduced as under:- 15.
XXXX XXXX 16. While answering questions o we find that essentially the ITAT ha CIT cancelling the registration o urisdiction and without authority amendment was made in Section Finance Act of 2010 empowering th registration granted under Section 1 o a conclusion that the activities of and not being carried out in acco rust or institution. The power was, he day when the CIT cancell 02.03.2010. 17. XXXX XXXX dated 08.05.2024 passed by thi missioner of Income Tax, Patial Barnala whereby the similar issu lly adjudicated by this Court afte ase of New Noble Educationa Tax and another; (2022) 448 ITR le Trust Vs Union of India an at the powers available to th under Section 12AA(3)of the Ac ied retrospectively. The relevan of law nos. 1, 3 and 4 (supra), as held the order passed by the on 02.03.2010 to be without in law. It has stated so as the n 12AA(3) of the Act by the he Commissioner to cancel the 12A of the Act where it reaches f the such trust are not genuine rdance with the objects of the , therefore, not available as on led the registration i.e. on is la ue er al R d he ct nt Suresh Kumar 2024.08.28 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-166-2016
1 of In L r o n q a T
I Assessee her Accordingly, 4. A accordingly.
August 12, 20 Ess Kay
Whether Whether R 6(O&M) Page 3 of 3
Thus, we find that the facts w of the present case as in th Infrastructure Development Co Limited’s case (supra), the Com registration under Section 12A of t order dated 29.04.2002 and on 29.0 not empowered to cancel such reg questions of law no. 1, 3 and 4 a assessee on the basis of judgment Tax, Gwalior (supra).” In view of the above, we find th rein also could not have b the Appeal stands dismissed. All pending applications filed in
[SANJEEV
[SAN 024 speaking / reasoned
: Reportable
: were almost similar to the facts he aforesaid case Industrial orporation (Gwalior) M.P. mmission had cancelled the the Act dated 13.04.1991 by its 04.2002 the Commissioner was gistration. In view thereof, the are answered in favour of the t in Commissioner of Income- hat registration of the respondent been cancelled retrospectively n this case shall stand disposed o
V PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE NJAY VASHISTH] JUDGE
Yes / No Yes / No t- y. of Suresh Kumar 2024.08.28 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document