9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1591 - AT - Income TaxPCIT jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice and pass the order cancelling registration u/s 12AA - activities of the assessee were neither genuine nor being carried out in accordance with its objects - HELD THAT - As notified by the CBDT the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) Bhopal was having jurisdiction over the assessee and not the Ld. PCIT(Central). During the course of hearing the Ld. DR could not demonstrate under which provision or authority the Ld. PCIT had authority to pass the impugned order dated 23.12.2019. As perused the decision of M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association New Cloth Market 2021 (1) TMI 876 - ITAT JAIPUR came to the conclusion in similar circumstances PCIT did not have authority to pass order. During hearing the Ld. DR could not distinguish the applicability of the decision of M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association New Cloth Market (Supra) on facts or in law. No merit in the submission of DR that the assessee should not be given any benefit in the matter of this grievance at this stage just because the issue has been raised for the first time. We observe that the grievance of assessee is assailing the very jurisdiction of Ld. PCIT. We observe that under the legal system of country only a designated authority can take a legal action or conduct proceedings. If the legal actions are permitted to any officer even if the concerned officer does not have legal authority it would be fatal and destroy the whole set up. Needless to mention that the actions undertaken by officers not vested with necessary legal authority are void-ab-initio and such actions can be challenged at any stage. Therefore there is nothing wrong in the claim of assessee even if the same is raised before us for the first time. Therefore the said order is liable to be quashed. We accordingly quash the said order and direct the revenue authorities to restore the registration u/s 12AA granted to the assessee. Appeal of assessee is allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are: (a) Whether the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Bhopal ["Ld. PCIT(Central)"], had jurisdiction and authority to issue the show-cause notice and pass the order cancelling the registration granted under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") to the assessee, a charitable foundation located in Madhya Pradesh; (b) Whether the order of cancellation of registration under section 12AA, purportedly passed by Ld. PCIT(Central), was valid and sustainable in law, given the statutory scheme and notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) regarding the jurisdiction of Commissioners of Income-Tax (Exemption) over exemption cases; (c) Whether the cancellation of registration under section 12AA on the ground that the activities of the assessee were not genuine and not in accordance with its objects was justified; (d) Whether the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act were applicable to the assessee in the facts of the case; (e) Whether the income of the institution was applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of trustees, as alleged; (f) Whether the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity, legality and jurisdictional competence of the show-cause notice and order of cancellation was admissible and meritorious. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a) and (b): Jurisdiction and Authority of Ld. PCIT(Central) to Cancel Registration under Section 12AA Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The jurisdiction of Income-Tax authorities is governed by section 120 of the Act and notifications issued by the CBDT under that section. The relevant CBDT notification dated 22.10.2014 (as amended) specifies that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Bhopal, shall exercise powers and perform all functions in respect of exemption cases under sections 10, 11, 12, 13A, and 13B of the Act in the territorial area of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Further, the notification authorizes delegation only to subordinate officers such as Additional Commissioners or Joint Commissioners but does not authorize transfer of jurisdiction to other Commissioners of Income-Tax of equivalent rank. Section 127 of the Act deals with transfer of cases but limits the transfer to Assessing Officers subordinate to the same Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The Supreme Court in various decisions has held that transfer of jurisdiction requires a positive agreement between authorities of equal rank and that absence of disagreement does not amount to agreement. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association (supra) extensively analyzed these provisions and held that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) did not have jurisdiction to cancel registration under section 12AA where the exemption case fell within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption). Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee is located in Madhya Pradesh and claims exemption under sections 11 and 12 based on registration under section 12AA. As per the CBDT notification, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Bhopal, has exclusive jurisdiction over such exemption cases in Madhya Pradesh. The Ld. PCIT(Central), who issued the show-cause notice and passed the order cancelling registration, did not fall within the notified jurisdictional authority for exemption cases. The Tribunal noted that the case was centralized to Ld. PCIT(Central) for the limited purpose of coordinated assessment following a search under section 132, but such centralization did not confer jurisdiction to the Ld. PCIT(Central) to deal with exemption matters or registration under section 12AA. The CBDT notification and statutory provisions do not empower transfer of exemption proceedings to another Commissioner of Income-tax of equal rank without a formal agreement or delegation, which was absent in the present case. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association, which held that transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 requires agreement between Commissioners of equal rank and that the power to cancel registration under section 12AA vests only with the prescribed authority empowered to grant such registration. The Tribunal further cited Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the mandatory requirement of recording and communicating reasons for transfer and the invalidity of transfers without proper jurisdictional basis. Key Evidence and Findings: The record showed no agreement or delegation from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Bhopal, to Ld. PCIT(Central) regarding jurisdiction over exemption proceedings. Communications on record related only to limited purpose of coordinated assessment. The proposal for centralization was not issued within the statutory time limit of 30 days from the date of search. No show-cause notice or order was issued by the proper jurisdictional authority. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the CBDT notification and statutory provisions to conclude that the Ld. PCIT(Central) had no jurisdiction to initiate or decide proceedings under section 12AA in respect of the assessee. The absence of a valid transfer or delegation rendered the impugned show-cause notice and order void ab initio. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that due to the search and centralization of cases, Ld. PCIT(Central) had jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that centralization for assessment purposes does not confer jurisdiction over exemption matters. The Revenue's argument that the assessee should have raised the jurisdictional objection earlier was also rejected, as jurisdictional defects can be challenged at any stage and actions by officers without legal authority are void. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the Ld. PCIT(Central) was without jurisdiction to pass the order cancelling registration under section 12AA and accordingly quashed the impugned order and directed restoration of the registration. Issue (c), (d) and (e): Validity of Cancellation on Grounds of Non-Genuine Activities, Applicability of Section 13(1)(c), and Application of Income for Trustees' Benefit Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 12AA provides for registration of charitable trusts or institutions. Section 13(1)(c) prohibits application of income for the benefit of trustees or their relatives. Cancellation of registration under section 12AA(3) can be effected if activities are not genuine or not in accordance with objects. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not adjudicate on these substantive grounds as the order cancelling registration was quashed on jurisdictional grounds. The Tribunal observed that since the impugned order was invalid, other grounds raised by the assessee did not require adjudication at this stage. Key Evidence and Findings: The Revenue alleged financial irregularities and non-genuine activities, but the Tribunal did not examine these findings due to the jurisdictional infirmity. Application of Law to Facts: Not applicable as the Tribunal did not proceed to examine these issues. Treatment of Competing Arguments: Not applicable. Conclusion: These grounds were left open for adjudication by the competent authority having jurisdiction. Issue (f): Admissibility and Merits of Additional Ground Challenging Legality and Jurisdiction Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (1998) held that additional grounds can be admitted if they go to the root of the matter and are purely legal. Jurisdictional objections can be raised at any stage as actions without jurisdiction are void. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it challenged the very legality and jurisdiction of the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that only a designated authority can take legal action and any act by an unauthorized officer is void ab initio. Key Evidence and Findings: The additional ground was raised through a separate application and was uncontested by the Revenue on admissibility. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied settled legal principles to admit and uphold the additional ground. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not object to admission but argued on merits that centralization conferred jurisdiction, which was rejected. Conclusion: The additional ground was admitted and found meritorious, leading to quashing of the impugned order on jurisdictional grounds. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held: "The Ld. PCIT(Central) was not having authority to pass the impugned order dated 23.12.2019. Therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed." "Under the legal system of country, only a designated authority can take a legal action or conduct proceedings. If the legal actions are permitted to any officer, even if the concerned officer does not have legal authority, it would be fatal and destroy the whole set up. Needless to mention that the actions undertaken by officers not vested with necessary legal authority are void-ab-initio and such actions can be challenged at any stage." "The grievance of assessee is assailing the very jurisdiction of Ld. PCIT. We observe that under the legal system of country, only a designated authority can take a legal action or conduct proceedings... Therefore there is nothing wrong in the claim of assessee even if the same is raised before us for the first time." Core principles established include:
Final determination was that the impugned order cancelling registration under section 12AA passed by Ld. PCIT(Central) was without jurisdiction and therefore quashed, with directions to restore the registration.
|
