Vellore Institute Of Technology vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10537 Mad

                                                                           WP No.7110 of 2008

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 26-04-2021

                                                    CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                               WP No.7110 of 2008
                                                     And
                                                MP No.1 of 2008
                                                     And
                                                MP No.1 of 2012


                     Vellore Institute of Technology,
                     Represented by Chairman and
                       Managing Trustee, Mr.G.Viswanathan,
                     No.54, Thennamaram Street,
                     Kosapet,
                     Vellore-632 001.                                  .. Petitioner


                                                       vs.


                     Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-I),
                     New Building (III Floor),
                     No.46, Nungambakkam High Road,
                     Chennai-600 034.                                  .. Respondent



                     PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,


                     1/28


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               WP No.7110 of 2008

                     calling for the records of the case and quash the impugned order No.PAN:
                     AAATN 0569 M dated 13.03.2008 passed by the respondent herein and to
                     forbear the respondent from cancelling the registration of the petitioner
                     Trust under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.


                                   For Petitioner          : Mr.R.V.Easwar, Senior Counsel
                                                             assisted by Ms.Rubal Bansal and
                                                             Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy.

                                   For Respondent          : Mr.A.P.Srinivas,
                                                             Senior Standing Counsel for
                                                             Income Tax.


                                                       ORDER

The proceedings dated 13.03.2008, cancelling the registration

made under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act is under challenge in

the present writ petition.

2. The reasons furnished for cancellation of registration is

sought to be assailed on the ground that Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short), was amended by

Finance Act 2010 with effect from 01.06.2010 inserting a clause.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

3. In view of the fact that the amendment came into force with

effect from 01.06.2010, the same cannot be invoked for the purpose of

cancellation of registration made prior to 01.06.2010 retrospectively, which

is impermissible.

4. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ

petitioner, mainly contended that the writ on hand rest on the jurisdiction

with reference to the amended Finance Act of the year 2010, which was

given effect to from 01.06.2010. The learned Senior Counsel solicited the

attention of this Court with reference to Section 12A of the Act regarding

conditions for applicability of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

5. The writ petitioner-Institution was registered on 09.07.1984

under Section 12A(a) of the Act, vide C.No.2039(18)/84. Accordingly, the

petitioner-Institution was extended certain benefits as permissible under the

provisions of the Act. While-so, Section 12AA of the Act deals with

"procedure for registration". Sub clause (3) contemplates the "procedure to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

be followed for cancellation of registration under Section 12A of the Act".

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner distinguished

Section 12AA(3) of the Act by stating that a specific clause has been

inserted through Finance Act 2010, which came into force with effect from

01.06.2010.

7. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the

registration was granted on 09.07.1984 and accordingly the benefit of

exemptions were granted. The impugned order of cancellation was issued

on 13.03.2008 and the amendment in Finance Act 2010 came into force

with effect from 01.06.2010. The insertion made in Finance Act 2010 is that

“or has obtained registration and at any time under Section 12A [as it stood

before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)].

8. In view of the fact that the insertion conferring power on

the Commissioner to cancel the registration was granted with reference to

the registration done under Section 12-A of the Act with effect from

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

01.06.2010 vide the Finance Act, 2010, the order impugned passed during

the year 2008, cancelling the registration done under Section 12A of the Act

is untenable and without jurisdiction. In other words, on the date of passing

of the impugned order, the respondent is not vested with any power or

jurisdiction to cancel the registration made under Section 12A of the Act,

granting exemption to the writ petitioner-Institution.

9. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, in nutshell, contended the facts by stating that Section 12A of the

Act, provides for compulsory registration of a Charitable Trust under the

Act as a condition for enjoying exemption from taxation under Sections 11

and 12 of the Act with effect from 01.04.1973.

10. The writ petitioner-Vellore Institution of Technology

was created as a Charitable Trust by a registered document No.94/84 in the

Office of SRO, Vellore on 08.05.1984. On 09.07.1984, the petitioner-

Institution obtained registration under Section 12A(a) of the Act vide

C.No.2039(18)/84. Section

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

11. Section 12AA was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 1996

with effect from 01.04.1997 to provide for a “procedure for registration” of

Charitable Trusts under the Act. The said Section 12AA provides for the

procedure for registration of a Trust or an Institution where an application

for registration is made under Section 12A(1)(a) or 12A(1)(aa) or

12A(1)(ab) of the Act.

12. On 01.10.2004, sub-section (3) was inserted into Section

12AA by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 to provide for power to cancel

registration granted to a Charitable Trust under Section 12AA(1)(b), on two

grounds viz., (a) activities of the Trust are not genuine; or (b) activities of

the Trust are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the

Trust.

13. On 08.01.2008, first show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner-Institution under Section 12AA(3) of the Act, to show cause as to

why registration under Section 12A should not be cancelled by invoking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

Section 12AA(3) of the Act.

14. The writ petitioner-Institution submitted their reply on

29.01.2008, inter alia, stating that Section 12AA(3) can be invoked only

where Trust has been granted registration after 01.04.1997 under Section

12AA(1)(b) of the Act, and cannot be invoked where the Trust was granted

registration under Section 12A prior to 01.04.1997. Thereafter, the

respondent sent a second show cause notice on 06.02.2008 to the writ

petitioner under Section 12AA(3) of the Act.

15. The petitioner-Institution again submitted their reply on

25.02.2008. The third show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on

03.03.2008 under Section 12AA(3) of the Act. For the said show cause

notice also the petitioner submitted their reply on 06.03.2008. Thereafter, on

13.03.2008, the impugned order of cancellation of registration was issued

by the respondent under Section 12AA(3) of the Act, by overruling the

objections raised with reference to the power/jurisdiction to cancel the

registration granted to the writ petitioner with effect from 09.07.1984,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

which is prior to 01.04.1997.

16. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, contended that sub-section (3) to Section 12AA was inserted

with effect from 01.10.2004 conferring power to the Principal

Commissioner or to the Commissioner for the first time to cancel

registration granted to any Trust or Institution under Section 12AA(1)(b) of

the Act. However, there was no provision to cancel the registration made

under Section 12A of the Act in the Finance Act 2004, which came into

force from 01.10.2004. Subsequently, sub-section (3) to Section 12AA was

amended and insertion was made, which came into force with effect from

01.06.2010 with new words “or has obtained registration at any time under

Section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act,

1996 (33 of 1996)]”, was inserted in Finance Act 2010, which came into

force with effect from 01.06.2010.

17. Circular No.1 of 2011 dated 06.04.2011, issued by the

Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as “CBDT”, in short),

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

which contains 'Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the Finance Act,

2010, wherein paragraph-7 reveals that the amendment made by the Finance

Act 2010 and paragraph 7.4 states that the amendment came into effect from

01.06.2010 and is applicable for the assessment year 2011-2012 and

subsequent assessment years. The said proposition was considered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax

Officer [(1981) 131 ITR 597], wherein in paragraph-11, it has been held as

under:-

“11. There is also one other circumstance which strongly reinforces the view we are taking in regard to the construction of sub- section (2). Soon after the introduction of sub- section (2), the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 119 of the Act, issued a circular dated July 7, 1964 explaining the scope and object of sub-section (2) in the following words:

“Section 13 of the Finance Act has introduced a new sub-section (2) in Section 52 of the Income Tax Act with a view to countering evasion of tax on capital gains through the device

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

of an understatement of the full value of the consideration received or receivable on the transfer of a capital asset.

The provision existing in Section 52 of the Income Tax Act before the amendment [which has now been re-numbered as sub-section (2)] enables the computation of capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset with reference to its fair market value as on the date of its transfer, ignoring the amount of the consideration shown by the assessee, only if the following two conditions are satisfied:

(a) the transferee is a person who is directly or indirectly connected with assessee, and

(b) the Income Tax Officer has reason to believe that the transfer was effected with object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of assessee to tax on capital gains.

In view of these conditions, this provision has a limited operation and does not apply to other cases where the tax liability on capital gains arising on transfer of capital assets between parties not connected with each other, is sought to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

be avoided or reduced by an understatement of the consideration paid for the transfer of the asset.” The circular also drew the attention of the Income Tax authorities to the assurance given by the Finance Minister in his speech that sub-section (2) was not aimed at perfectly honest and bona fide transactions where the consideration in respect of the transfer was correctly disclosed or declared by the assessee, but was intended to deal only with cases where the consideration for the transfer was understated by the assessee and was shown at a lesser figure than that actually received by him. It appears that despite this circular, the Income Tax authorities in several cases levied tax by invoking the provision in sub- section (2) even in cases where the transaction was perfectly, honest and bona fide and there was no understatement of the consideration. This was quite contrary to the instructions issued in the Circular which was binding on the Tax Department and the Central Board of Direct Taxes was, therefore, constrained to issue another circular on January 14, 1974 whereby the Central Board, after reiterating the assurance given by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

Finance Minister in the course of his speech, pointed out:

“It has come to the notice of the Board that in some cases the Income Tax Officers have invoked the provisions of Section 52(2) even when the transactions were bona fide. In this context reference is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Navnitlal C. Javeri v.K.K.

Sen [AIR 1965 SC 1375 : (1965) 1 SCR 909 : 56 ITR 198] and Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. C.I.T. [(1972) 4 SCC 474 : 1974 SCC (Tax) 304 : 82 ITR 913] , wherein it was held that the Circular issued by the Board would be binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the Income Tax Officers are bound to follow the instructions issued by the Board.” and instructed the Income Tax Officers that “while completing the assessments they should keep in mind the assurance given by the Minister of Finance and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

provisions of Section 52(2) of the Income Tax Act may not be invoked in cases of bona fide transactions”.

These two circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes are, as we shall presently point out, binding on the Tax Department in administering or executing the provision enacted in sub-section (2), but quite apart from their binding character, they are clearly in the nature of contemporanea expositio furnishing legitimate aid in the construction of sub-section (2). The rule of construction by reference to contemporanea expositio is a well-established rule for interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority, though it must give way where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. This rule has been succinctly and felicitously expressed in Crawford on Statutory Construction, (1940 Edn.) where it is stated in para 219 that “administrative construction (i.e.

contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or executive officers charged with executing a statute)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

generally should be clearly wrong before it is overturned; such a construction, commonly referred to as practical construction, although non-

controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight; it is highly persuasive”.

The validity of this rule was also recognised in Baleshwar Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass [ILR 35 Cal. 701] where Mookerjee, J., stated the rule in these terms:

“It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a statute will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it, at the time of its enactment and since, by those whose duty it has been to construe, execute and apply it.” and this statement of the rule was quoted with approval by this Court in Deshbandhu Gupta & Co. vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. [(1979) 4 SCC 565] It is clear from these two circulars that the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which is the highest authority entrusted with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

execution of the provisions of the Act, understood sub-section (2) as limited to cases where the consideration for the transfer has been understated by the assessee and this must be regarded as a strong circumstance supporting the construction which we are placing on that sub-

section.”

18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director

of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust

[(2011) 339 ITR 622]. The learned Senior Counsel is of the opinion that the

said case also deals with the registration granted under Section 12A of the

Act. In the said case, the registration granted on 04.12.1974 under Section

12A was cancelled by order dated 23.03.2008, which was prior to

conferment of cancellation of registration by Finance Act 2010 with effect

from 01.06.2010. Thus, the very same point was decided by the High Court

of Delhi also.

19. The facts as stated by the petitioner are not seriously

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

disputed with reference to the registration done by the petitioner under

Section 12A(a) of the Act on 09.07.1984. The power of cancellation under

the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the only point which is disputed between the

parties to the lis on hand. Thus, it is suffice to consider the provisions as it

is with reference to the powers conferred to the Commissioner under the Act

for cancellation of registration made under Section 12A of the Act.

20. The learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing on

behalf of the respondent, disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the

petitioner, by stating that de hors the amendment made in Finance Act 2010,

which came into force with effect from 01.06.2010, the Commissioner of

Income Tax is vested with the power for cancellation. Admittedly, sub-

clause (3) to Section 12A of the Act was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act

2004 with effect from 01.10.2004. The provision existed at that point of

time confers power on the Commissioner to cancel the registration made

under Section 12A of the Act and in the present case, the impugned

cancellation order was issued by the Commissioner on 13.03.2008 well after

the amendment made in Finance (No.2) Act 2004 with effect from

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

01.10.2004. Thus, the order passed by the Competent Authority is having

jurisdiction and there is no infirmity as such.

21. The learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing on

behalf of the respondent, reiterated by stating that the insertion by the

Finance Act 2010 with effect from 01.10.2010 inserting new words “or has

obtained registration and at any time under Section 12A [as it stood before

its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)]” is only a

clarificatory amendment and cannot be construed as an amendment made

conferring power on the Commissioner for the first time. The Commissioner

was vested with the power to cancel the registration granted under Section

12A of the Act in Finance Act 2004, which came into force from

01.10.2004. Thus, it is clarificatory amendment and therefore, such

clarificatory amendment issued would not take away the power originally

conferred on the Commissioner to cancel the registration under Finance

(No.2) Act 2004 with effect from 01.10.2004. Thus, the Commissioner gets

power to cancel the registration on the ground stipulated under the

provisions with effect from 01.10.2004 and the 2010 insertion is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

clarificatory in nature. Thus, the clarificatory amendment would not take

away the powers already conferred on the Commissioner to cancel the

registration through Finance (No.2) Act 2004 with effect from 01.10.2004.

22. This Court is of the considered opinion that sub-clause

(3) if read before Finance Act 2010 and after Finance Act 2010 would throw

light with reference to the powers conferred on the Commissioner. In order

to get clarity, this Court is inclined to extract sub-clause (3) to Section 12A

of the Act, prevailing prior to Finance Act 2010, which reads as follows:-

“Where a Trust or an Institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) and subsequently the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such Trust or Institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the Trust or Institution, as the case may be, he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such Trust or Institution.

Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be passed unless such Trust or Institution has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

23. The amended Section 12AA(3) of the Act after Finance

Act 2010 with effect from 01.06.2010 reads as follows:-

“(3) Where a Trust or an Institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub- section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under Section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996] and subsequently the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such Trust or Institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the Trust or Institution, as the case may be, he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such Trust or Institution.

Provided that no order under this sub-

section shall be passed unless such Trust or Institution has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

24. Let us now consider the provisions existing prior to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

01.06.2010, which reveals that registration granted under clause (b) of sub-

section (1). Thus, the same indicates with reference to the registraion

granted under clause (b) of sub-section (1) to Section 12AA of the Act. The

said sub-clause (b) of section (1) denotes that "after satisfying himself with

the objects of the Trust or Institution and the genuineness of its activities as

required under sub-clause(b) to sub-section (1) of Section 12AA of the Act

comply with the requirements under sub-clause "he (1) shall pass order in

writing registration of Trust or Institution (2) shall if he is not so satisfied

shall pass order with reference to Registration of Trust or Institution and a

copy of the order shall be sent to the applicant".

25. Cogent reading of Section 12A along with clause (b) of

sub-section (1) to Section 12AA would reveal that Section 12A deals with

conditions for applicability of Sections 11 and 12 and sub-clause (b) of sub-

section (1) to Section 12AA "procedure for registration". Thus, Section

12AA sub-clause (b) first portion denotes procedures under which the

registration is made and the same shall include the conditions for

applicability of Sections 11 and 12 with reference to the registration made

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

under Section 12A of the Act. In other words,Sections 11 and 12, 12A and

12AA are to be read cogently and each Section cannot be dissected for the

purpose of diluting the purpose and object of the amendments providing

power of cancellation to the Commissioner with effect from 01.10.2004.

Accordingly, in respect of the registration granted and after such

registration if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that

the activities of the Trust or Institution are not genuine or are not being

carried out in accordance with the objects of the Trust, as the case may be,

he shall pass an order in cancelling the registration of such Trust or

Institution. The provisions are unambiguous even prior to the Finance Act

2010 introduced with effect from 01.06.2010.

26. Even before the said insertion, the Commissioner was

empowered to cancel the registration on such circumstances as narrated in

the provision. The question arises whether there is any other provision for

registration. The answer is no.

27. In the absence of any other provision for registration

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

which is traceable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is to

be construed that the registration made under Section 12A of the Act alone

is referred in the provisions under Section 12AA (3) of the Act, even prior

to the insertion of Finance Act 2010 with effect from 01.06.2010. Thus, it is

made clear that even prior to the Finance Act, 2010, the Principal

Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to exercise the power of

cancellation by invoking sub-clause (3) to Section 12AA of the Act and the

insertion made in Finance Act 2010 is only to clarify the provisions under

which the registration is made i.e. under Section 12A and the said insertion

would not affect the power of the Commissioner already existing. The

insertion would have been made, since several Trusts or Institutions raised

the ground of jurisdiction and the Legislators thought fit to clarify the same

and accordingly, the provision was further clarified by way of insertion by

the Finance Act, 2010 stating that the registration obtained at any time

under Section 12A is also amenable to Section 12AA(3) of the Act. Thus, it

is unambiguous that the insertion in Finance Act 2010 is only clarificatory

in respect of the powers already existing under sub-clause (3) to Section

12AA of the Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

28. In view of the fact that all registrations are done under

Section 12A of the Act, sub-clause (3) to Section 12AA existing prior to

01.06.2010 conferred powers on the Commissioner as the subsequent

portion of the pre-amended sub-clause (3) itself clarifies that the Principal

Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to cancel the registration if

they are satisfied that the activities of such Trusts or Institutions are not

genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the

Trust or Institution, as the case may be.

29. Section 11 of the Act enumerates "income from property

held for charitable or religious purposes". Section 12 deals with "income of

Trusts or Institutions from contributions". Section 12A provides "conditions

for applicability of Sections 11 and 12".

30. Section 12A contemplates conditions for applicability of

Sections 11 and 12.

31. It is pertinent to note that the last insertion made to sub-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

clause (a) of sub-section (1) to Section 12A is substituted by the Finance

(No.2) Act 1996 with effect from 01.04.1997). The said insertion

"whichever is later" and such Trust or Institution registered under Section

12AA also denotes that Section 12A is to be read cogently along with

Section 12AA of the Act.

32. These provisions cannot be read in isolation as all the

registrations are done under Section 12A of the Act. The said provision

contemplates the conditions for applicability of Sections 11 and 12

regarding exemptions. Thus, the provisions are unambiguous with regard to

the powers conferred on the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to

cancel the registration of such Trust or Institution, as the case may be, by

invoking sub-clause (3) to Section 12AA of the Act.

33. Constructive interpretation of the above provisions dealt

with in the aforementioned paragraphs would clarify that the judgments

cited by the petitioner as well as the respondents, which all are closely

relatable to those facts and circumstances of those cases need not be applied

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

with reference to the case on hand. The cases cited reveal that few are in

favour of the petitioner and others are in favour of the respondents. Thus,

the facts and circumstances dealt with in those cases cannot be related to the

facts and circumstances of the present case and thus, this Court has

independently considered the facts and circumstances with reference to the

provisions of the Income Tax Act.

34. The provisions of law, effect and implications of

amendments are to be dealt independently with reference to the facts and

circumstances of each case. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the parties

in the present writ petition need not be applied with reference to the facts

and circumstances of the present case.

35. In view of the elaborate discussions made with reference

to the scope of Sections 11, 12, 12A and 12AA of sub-clause (3) in the

aforementioned paragraphs, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

was vested with the power even prior to 01.06.2010 to cancel the registraion

made under Section 12A of the Act, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

activities of such Trust or Institution are not genuine or are not being carried

out in accordance with the objects of the Trust or Institution, as the case

may be, and he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of

such Trust or Institution.

36. In the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax in

impugned proceedings dated 13.03.2008 considered the merits and demerits

of the case and assigned reason for cancellation of registration, which reads

as under:-

“3. Coming to the merits, search and seizure operations on 06.06.2007 at your premises, inter alia, have brought to light the following violations:

a) Capitation Fee was collected by the assessee Trust.

b) The funds of the Trust at least to the tune of Rs.22 crores have been misused by the Trustees.

c) The provisions of Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions [Prohibition of Capitation Fee] Act, 1992 have been grossly

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

violated.

d) The provisions of Section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, have not been adhered to.”

37. The reasons assigned for the purpose of cancellation

are undoubtedly in consonance with the powers conferred on the

Commissioner under sub-clause (3) to Section 12AA of the Act and

therefore, the order of cancellation can at any stretch of time be stated as

infirm or perverse.

38. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it stands

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

26-04-2021 Index : Yes/No.

Internet : Yes/No.

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.

Svn

To

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-I), New Building (III Floor), No.46, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.7110 of 2008

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

WP No.7110 of 2008

26-04-2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/