Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2007 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (3) TMI 208 - HC - Income TaxGrant for registration u/s 12A - show-cause notice - amendment in the objects of the society - Order u/s 220(6) - necessity of passing speaking order - HELD THAT:- Where the objects of the trust or institution have been altered wholesale after the grant of registration and intimation of the alteration has not been given to the Commissioner, the order of the assessing authority on the assumption that the registration, which was granted on the basis of a particular representation, held out by the assessee no longer survives or holds good, would not call for interference by this court in exercise of its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction. To sum up, we are unable to exercise our discretion to enable the assessee to continue to utilise and enjoy the registration despite the wholesale change in the objects without giving its immediate intimation to the Commissioner. Prima facie, when a person deliberately makes an alteration in the objects or in the memorandum of association, it will be presumed that the alteration has been made because some change is required. Alterations are not made for the fun of it. Thus the petitioners will therefore be under a heavy burden to demonstrate similarity if they wish to press such a plea. We have no reason to doubt that if pressed, this aspect whether the alteration of the objects does or does not take the activities of the petitioners now permissible under the new objects outside the scope of the original objects will be considered by the appellate authority on the next date while considering whether the petitioners have a prima facie case for grant of an interim order. This order indicates that mind has been applied to the assertions which have been found contained in the application dated February 15, 2007. Secondly, even if adequate reasons have not been given by the Assessing Officer in the order dated February 20, 2007, as required by the decision in the case of Shivangi Steels [2004] 266 ITR 62 (All) that is merely a technical ground on the part of the petitioners. In order to persuade this court to grant an interim stay, during pendency of the appeal, as desired by the petitioners in this writ petition, the petitioners were required to show, in addition to the lack of reasons in the order dated February 20, 2007, that the assertions contained in their application dated February 15, 2007, constituted a substantial prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, i.e., the petitioner ought to have demonstrated, prima facie, that the assessment order, which is under challenge in the appeal, contained at least prima facie an error sufficient to justify stalling the demand. No such thing was shown to us. Thus, we find ourselves unable to grant any relief in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
|