Benefits granted to a charitable institution cannot be extended to its substantially amended objects

Registration granted under section 12A, on 12th February 1996, and the benefits flowing therefrom, cannot be extended to the amended objects of the society unless the DIT examines the same and comes to a conclusion that the registration under section 12A, can be extended to the revised objects, memorandum and by-laws. It would be illogical to hold that once an institution is registered under section 12A, no matter whatever may be the changes in the objects, rules and regulations, for any number of times, the institution should be given the benefit of section 11 to 13 of the Act, in view of the original registration granted under section 12A.

In our opinion, the assessee society should approach the registering authority with the changes and amendments so that the authorities could examine as to whether the amendments in question meet the requirement of law. Since the stand of the Revenue, as already stated, is that the letter dated 18th November 2009, is only advisory in nature and is not an exercise of a statutory power and that it is not a withdrawal or cancellation of registration under section 12A, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable under section 253 of the Act.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

ITA no. 1285/Mum./2010 – (Assessment Year : Not Applicable)

The Board of Control for Cricket in India,

v/s

Income Tax Officer

Date of Order – 30.03.2012

ORDER

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M.

This appeal preferred by the assessee, is directed against the impugned letter no.DIC(E)/u/s 14A/2009-10/185 dated 28th December 2009, passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, wherein the subject is regarding amendments to the Memorandum of Association made on 1st June 2006, as well as on 21st August 2007, informing regarding nonexistence of registration under section 12A, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”).

Facts in brief:-

2. The assessee is a society duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration Act, 1975. The main object is to promote the game of cricket. The assessee was registered under section 12A of the Act with the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, (herein after for short “DIT”), on 12th February 1996. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08. During the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee society amended its memorandum and made amendments in the rules & regulations and that the same were not intimated to the Income Tax Department. For better appreciation of the facts in the present case, it is important to note the following inter-departmental and vice-versa correspondences exchanged between the assessee and the DIT as well.

V’ Letter dated 12th November 2009 written by the Addl. DIT (Exemption) to the DIT (Exemption);

V’ Letter dated 19th November 2009, written by the Addll. DIT, Range-1, Mumbai, to the DIT, Range-1, Mumbai;

V’ Letter dated 30th November 2009, written by the DIT (Exemption), Mumbai, to the assessee;

V’ Letter dated 3rd December 2009, written by the DIT (Exemption) to the assessee.

V’ Letter dated 4th December 2009, written by the Addl. DIT, Range-1, Mumbai, to DIT, Range-1, Mumbai;

V’ Reply dated 14th December 2009, submitted by the assessee to the DIT (Exemption), Mumbai;

V’ Reply dated 16th December 2009, submitted by the assessee to the DIT (Exemption), Mumbai;

V’ Impugned letter dated 28th December 2009, written by the DIT (Exemption), Mumbai, to the assessee;

3. The Addl. DIT (Exemption), Range-1, Mumbai, wrote to the DIT (Exemption), Mumbai, on the issue of withdrawal of registration under  section 12A, granted to the assessee. Further, on i9th November 2009, one more letter was written by the Addl. DIT (Exemption), Range-i, bringing to the notice of the DIT, the amendments made in the Memorandum of Association by the assessee.

4. On 4th December 2009, the Addl. DIT (Exemption) brought to the notice of the DIT that two sets of amendments were made in the Memorandum of Association and the first one is on 1st June 2006 and the second one is on 21st August 2007.

5. On 17th November 2009, the assessee intimated the Assessing Officer regarding the amendments made to the Memorandum and rules in the Special General Meeting held on 1st June 2009. Later, on 29th November 2009, the assessee intimated to the DIT about the amendments made to the Memorandum of Association on 1st June 2006. The DIT issued a show cause notice for withdrawal of registration under section i2A of the Act, to the assessee on 30th November 2009. A further letter dated 3rd December 2009, was written by the DIT on the intimation of amendments to Memorandum of Association, as on 1st June 2006, by the assessee to DIT, vide letter dated 28thNovember 2006. This was replied by the assessee on 14th December 2009. During the course of hearing, on 1sth December 2009, certain queries were raised. The assessee replied on i6th December 2009, and intimated the amendments made to its Memorandum and rules on 21st August 2007.

6. The DIT, after considering the reply, passed the impugned order dated 28t h December 20i2, holding that – (i) when the objects of the institution, which are the basis of grant of registration are altered after grant of such registration, the very foundation of registration having been removed by the voluntary act of the assessee, the registration would not survive; (ii) the registration under section i2A, was granted vide order dated i2th February i996, on the basis of the Memorandum and rules & regulations of the assessee as on the date of registration and that, admittedly, the amendments were made on 1st June 2006 and also on 2it August 2007, but this haD not been informed to DIT, who had granted registration under  section 12A of the Act and that this information on amendments haD not been given the Department for more than three years and, hence, as the very foundation for grant of registration haD been removed, the registration would not survive. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Allahabad Agricultural Institution v/s Union of India, [2007] 291 ITR 116 (All.); (iii) on the contention that there is no mandatory requirement to intimate the changes, the DIT held that if the institution does not want to communicate the changes, the only consequence is that the benefit of registration will not be applicable. He held that the decision is with the assessee to apply for fresh registration by enclosing changed memorandum and rules so that the authority granting the registration, may apply his mind to come to a conclusion that the registration is to be granted or not. Reliance was placed on Page-107 of the book “Charitable and Religious Trusts and Institutions” by S. Rajaratnam, [6th Edition, May 2008]. At Para-14, the DIT concluded as follows:-

“14. This letter is a communication of what has happened as a consequence of the amendments made in the objects based on the informations received. From the above discussion, it is quite clear that the registration granted to BCCI under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 12th February 1996, does not survive from the date on which the objects were changed i.e., 01.06.2006. However, as has been mentioned in the above para a fresh application for registration u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, may be filed along with necessary documents.”

7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

8. The learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.3. Pardiwala, representing the assessee, argued before us that the scheme of the Act is very clear and to avail the benefit of sections 11 and 12, the assessee has to make an application for registration under section 12A. He submitted that the assessee has fulfilled this condition and, hence, it is eligible for benefit under sections 11 to 13 of the Act. He submitted that section 12AA of the Act was not in the statute when an application was made for registration. Referring to the provisions of section 12AA sub-section (3), he submitted that the power to cancel registration under section 12A, was given to the authorities  only w.e.f. 1st June 2010, which is much after passing of the order dated 28th December 2009, by the DIT and that this letter canceling / withdrawing registration under section 12A, is illegal. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appeal no.54 of 2011, DIT(E) v/s Mool Chand Khairatiram Trust, judgment dated 4th April 2011, for the proposition that the amendment brought out by Finance Act, 2010, is prospective in nature. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reported as CIT v/s Manav Vikas Avam Sewa Sansthan, [2011] 336 ITR 250 (All.).

9. He disputed the findings of the DIT that he was not canceling the registration but only withdrawing it and argued that the effect is the same. He submitted that there are two propositions on which he is relying i.e., – (i) the DIT has no power to withdraw the registration or to hold that the registration does not survive and (ii) without prejudice, such an act can be done only if the DIT or the Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or that the activities are not being carried out in accordance with the object of the trust or institution. He submitted that no such satisfaction is recorded by the DIT and, hence, the order is bad-in-law.

10. He referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Agricultural Institution (supra), which was heavily relied upon by the DIT and distinguished the same by submitting that it was a Writ Petition filed for grant of stay of collection of tax and the Hon’ble Court was concerned with was the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that it was a case where the objects were enlarged from six objects to fourteen objects and was a case where objects are drastically changed. Under these circumstances, the Hon’ble Court took a view that there is substantial change in the Articles and in the objects. He argued that nowhere in the judgment, the Hon’ble Court has laid down that if objects are changed the registration would automatically be withdrawn. He referred to the Board Circular no.3/1995 dated 24th September 1984, and submitted that for promotion of sports was considered a charitable activity. Referring to  the change in the objects, he submitted that these are minor changes and the benefit was extended to other sports and in such a situation, the impugned order has to be cancelled. He relied on the decision of Mumbai “E” Bench of the Tribunal in Shri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Sangeetha Sabha v/s Director of Income Tax (Exemption), ITA no.1848/Mum./2011, order dated 9th September 2011, and submitted that an undertaking given in the form or application would not become a requirement of the statute and, hence, the ground of the DIT that the assessee has not complied with the undertaking, does not stand. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Trustees of Shri Teckchand Chandiram Trust, [1990] 184 ITR 537 (Bom.) and the decision of the Mumbai “G” Bench of the Tribunal in Mehta Jivraj Makandas & Parekh Govindaji Kalyanji Modh Vanik Vidyarthi Public Trust v/s DIT(E), ITA no. 2212/Mum./2010, order dated 11th March 2011, and submitted that the Tribunal held that there is no statutory requirement to intimate the changes in objects to the Income Tax Department and the requirement of intimation is mentioned in only Form6 10A, and even in this form, no time limit is prescribed. Referring to the extracts from the commentary by Mr. S. Rajaratnam, learned Sr. Advocate submitted that the advise by the author was by way of abundant caution and not a legal requirement.

11. The learned Special Counsel, G.C. Srivastava, representing the Revenue, submitted that the admitted position is that the assessee has changed its memorandum and rules and regulations twice i.e., on 1st June 2006 and for the second time is on 21st August 2007, and that these changes in objects were not intimated to the DIT for a period of three years, on the ground of inadvertence. He pointed out that only during assessment proceedings, in an enquiry made that the amendments were imformed to the Revenue authorities. He submitted that what is registered is not merely the name of the assessee but the entire objects based on the Memorandum of Association and the rules & regulations of the institution. He contended that the benefits under section 12A, flows from the objects and when there are material changes in the objects, the benefit would definitely be affected. The  learned Special Counsel contended that the DIT has neither cancelled the registration nor withdrawn the registration and that he has just intimated the assessee of the consequences of the changes in the objects to the assessee. He argued that on such intimation, an appeal cannot lie under section 253 of the Act. He submitted that this is a case where the assessee by his own voluntary act of changing the objects without seeking approval, cancelled the registration. He vehemently contended that when the association has been registered under section 12A, and subsequently it alters its objects and also involved in commercial transactions, it would be unreasonable to hold that the registration under section 12A, still holds good. He argued that the benefit of registration cannot be extended with the newly amended objects. He argued that it is not for the assessee to decide as to whether the amendments are material or not. On merits, he submitted that the assessee has suppressed Pages-38 and 39 of the amended Memorandum and rules and regulations and that these two pages are of vital importance and for the benefit of the bench, he provided copies of the same. He pointed out that change such as Indian Premier League was added by way of these amendments. He further filed a copy of 7gth Annual Report of the assessee for the year 2 007-08, wherein the concept of “DLF Indian Premier League’ was mentioned and it was stated that new standards of entertainment was sought and the project was launched as “Manoranjan Ka Baap’. He further referred to other parts of the annual report and submitted that what is being done was something more than mere promotion of sports and this is definitely a drastic change in the object. He filed photocopy of some of the untitled report to point out that clause 6.2.4 of the regulations for players, team officials, umpires and administrators and submitted that this was amended to allow direct and indirect commercial interest in Indian Premier League and 20:20. He submitted that when the society allowed the administrators and managers to have commercial interest, the Revenue has the right to examine whether the amended objects are of general public utility. He argued that if the assessee does not intimate such changes what would the Assessing Officer look at. He submitted that the drastic change in the objects resulted in the foundation on which the registration stood  withdrawn. Alternatively, he submitted that the registration cannot be extended to the new objects. He submitted that section 12A, will not be workable if changes in objects are not to be considered by the authorities. He pointed out that the DIT has not gone into by clause by clause and examination of amendments but has simply directed the assessee to file for fresh registration and also intimated the consequence of change of objects. He relied on the decision of Mumbai “E” Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Sterlite Foundation v/s DIT(E), ITA no.5340/Mum./2009, order dated 1st January 2010, and argued that withdrawal of registration under section 12A, was not held as illegal by the Bench.

12. In reply, Learned Sr. Advocate submitted that the DIT has not referred to any section under which the order has been passed and under these circumstances, it has to be assumed that the order has been passed under section 12AA(3) of the Act. He referred to Page-9 for assessment year 2007- 08 and argued that this is the manner in which the Assessing Officer understood the order dated 28th December 2009, passed by the DIT which is under challenge. He referred to the words “does not survive” and submitted that this tantamounts to withdrawing / canceling of registration. He relied on the following case laws for the proposition that the registration granted under section 12A, cannot be cancelled.

V’ Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee vs CIT, [2007] 106 ITD 256 (Hyd.);

V’ Bharati Vidyapeeth v/s ITO, [2008] 14 DTR (Trib.) 454 (Pune);

V’ Kailashanand Mission Trust vs ACIT, [2004] 088 ITD 125 (Del.);

V’ Namra Mahila Avam Bal Kalyan Samati v/s CIT, [2005] 1 SOT 224 (Jab.).

13. He reiterated that there is no legal obligation to intimate the change and that the entire emphasise of the DIT was on the change in objects and that the rules were not referred. He submitted that the memorandum has only 4 pages and the rules provided for constitution of a committee for Indian Premier League which is the same as other committee formed and  that nothing much turns on this. He emphasized that generation of income is different from application of income and that Indian Premier League is not business.

14. The learned Sr. Advocate also submitted that the adjudication on the issue is the domain of the Assessing Officer and when an administrator gets benefit, provisions of section 13, can be invoked by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the learned Departmental Representative cannot expand the scope of argument by including reasons not cited by the DIT and for this, he relied on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Mitsubishi Corpn. vs DCIT, [2008] 115 ITD 167 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble P&H High Court in CIT v/s Jagadhri Electric Supply and Industrial Co., [1983] 140 ITR 490 (P&H). He submitted that Allahabad High Court in Agricultural Institute (supra) has, in fact, given an opportunity to the assessee to approach the concerned authorities and, hence, that case does not go against the assessee. Without prejudice, he argued that only the amended objects could be excluded from the benefit of registration under section 12A. He emphasised that there is no provision in the Act to re-register an entity.

15. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the papers on record, as well as the case laws cited before us, we hold as follows:-

16. The undisputed facts are that the assessee society amended its objects twice i.e., firstly on 1st June 2006 and subsequently on 21st August 2007. These amended objects are yet to be examined by the Revenue authorities. The assessee society has not intimated the changes in the objects to the Revenue authorities for a period of about three years and it chose to intimate the changes only after being questioned by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The changes made in the memorandum and in the rules and regulations on 1st June 2006, are available in the paper book from Pages-36 to 41, and the changes made on 21st August 2007, are available in the paper book from Pages-47 to 80. The registration was  granted to the assessee society on 12th February 1996, based on the pre-amended memorandum and rules & regulations.

17. We agree with the findings of the DIT that granting of registration under section 12A, means granting of registration based on the objects and by-laws of the society as filed by the assessee along with the application for registration. Grant of registration under section 12A, does not mean that only the name of the society is registered. It means that the memorandum and by-laws are examined by the authorities and on being satisfied that the memorandum and by-laws fulfilled the conditions laid down under the Act, registration under section 12A, is granted and this, in turn, enables the assessee to avail the benefit of sections 11 to 13 of the Act. Thus, what is registered is the society along with its memorandum and by-laws. If there are significant or material changes in the objects or bye-laws, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the registration under section 12A, can be extended to those amended objects and bye-laws. Any other view would defect the very purpose of registration. The assessee has made various amendments to the Memorandum of Association as well as in the Rules and Regulations, which are placed in the paper book vide Pages-36 to 41. These changes have been highlighted during the course of hearing. We do not want to list out the amendments as the Revenue has not examined the same, clause by clause and come to any conclusion. Suffice to say that some of the amendments are material and substantive, one of them being holding ODIs and Twenty-20, any other matches, etc.

18. Now let us examine as to how the assessee views these changes. The assessee, in its 79th annual report 2007-08, has, under the head “DLF INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE 2008 – CRICKETAINMENT”, stated as follows:-

“A sporting extravaganza that captivated an entire nation is perhaps the best catchphrase to describe the event that was the inaugural season of the DLF Indian Premier League. Forty-four days of adrenaline-packed cricketing action captured the imagination of not only India, but the cricket-loving population the world over, virtually becoming an integral part of people’s daily lives. The television gurus dubbed it the best ever reality television show, and what a show it was, combining the euphoria and victory with the ignominy of defeat  and all as if written to a perfect script. A script that played out only when the last ball was bowled and the unfancied Rajasthan Royals of Jaipur emerged victorious.

The competition was the brainchild of Lalit Kumar Modi, currently the Vice President of the BCCI, and Chairman and Commissioner of DLF IPL. It was in 1994, that he started ideating on how a cricket-mad land like India could have a world class cricketing league like the National Basketball Association NBA or the National Football League (NFL) or even the English Premier League. The concept, as he envisaged it, was to merge sport and business for the greater good of the game. The outcome was a global cricketing entertainment product, which will generate its strength from the millions of fans and sponsors likewise in the future. Globally, sports leagues have been modelled along the same lines, be in the English Premier League or the NBA.

The Governing Council of the IPL comprised former Test captains MAK Pataudi, Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri and I.S. Bindra. Chirayu Amin, Arjun Jetley, Rajeev Shukla and Lalit Modi.

The DLF Indian Premier League was the first time any Indian sport adopted the franchisee model in sports and conducted a Players’ auction to ensure that each team in the league was balanced and competitive.

19. The said report, on this issue, concludes as follows:-

“The DLF Indian Premier League has thus get new standards in entertainments, in-stadia and on the TV. Imagine a domestic event in India being covered globally, and our young cricketers playing with the world’s best, showcasing their skills and also learning with the best coaches and support staff to help them improve their game. Had anyone imagined this for Indian cricket a decade ago but it is reality today. Additionally, the adrenalin packed Twenty 20 format, which is fast paced and exciting has also appealed to a global audience. And who knows a couple of years down the line the DLF Indian Premier League could well have its first Chinese or American Players import playing for one of the eight franchises.

Projected as “Manoranjan Ka Baap*F’ the league has thus more than lived up to all its claims and even set fresh records in TRP ratings, which have far outstripped TRPs for the soap serials. The sky is the limit, and hopefully, the DLF Indian Premier League will grow with each passing year to become the premier spectacle in Global Sport.

*Father of Entertainment’.

20. We further note the following amendments to clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations for player, team officials, umpire and administrator.

“Prior to the amendment, Clause 6.2.4 of the Regulations for Players, Team officials, Umpires and Administrators, said “No administrator shall have, directly or indirectly any commercial interest in the matches and events conducted by the Board.” After the amendment, though the clause said “no administrator shall have directly or indirectly any commercial interest in any of the events of the BCCI excluding IPL, Champions League and Twenty2O”.

21. These amendments when read together leaves us in no doubt that certain substantial and material changes have taken place to the memorandum, as well as to the rules and regulations which permit commercial interest to administrators in IPL, Champion League and Twenty-20. In our opinion, the Revenue authorities definitely have a right to examine the question whether these changes in the memorandum, rules and regulations are in consonance with the provisions of the Act so as to enable the assessee to continue to claim benefit as a charitable institution under section 11, 12 and 13 of theAct.

22. We are of the opinion that the benefits that flow from registration of an assessee under section 12A, cannot be extended to the amended clauses of the memorandum and rules and regulations, otherwise an absurd situation will arise. If an institution obtains registration under section 12A, on a certain objects and bye-laws, examined by the DIT and thereafter, that institution amends its objects and regulations substantially, then to hold that the registration under section 12A would hold good for the amended objects and bye-laws would be against law and the scheme of the Act. Whether the amendment is substantial or otherwise, is also to be examined by the Revenue authorities and it is not for the assessee to unilaterally declare that the amendments are not drastic or substantive. If the assessee does not intimate the Revenue of the amendments on the ground that there is no statutory requirement, in our opinion, the assessee, as a consequence, cannot claim the benefit that flows under section 12A, for these changed objects; otherwise it would amount to a situation where the assessee shifts the goalpost midway and continues to claim benefit. There might be no statutory requirement for intimating the DIT of the changes in the memorandum and rules and regulations but if the assessee does not fulfill its undertaking to furnish the changes, then he cannot claim automatic benefits under sections 11 to 13 of the Act, for those altered objects, rules and regulations. Benefits under the Act cannot be claimed unless the changes are vetted by the authorities.

23. Learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the provisions of section 11(4)(a) of the Act, and submitted that even if the assessee derives profit and gains of business, it does not automatically loose the benefits conferred under sections 11 to 13. This does not mean that the Act allows the assessee society, to alter its objects and not intimate the same and seek approval from the Revenue, but can still claim benefit under the Act. Definitely, the examination of these issues is in the domain of the Assessing Officer while examining the claim of the assessee for exemption. It is well settled that the burden of proof, when exemption is claimed, is on the assessee. Learned Counsel argues that changes in the rules and regulations are not the grounds on which benefit under section 11 to 13 can be denied. We are of the opinion that when the rules and regulations can be amended so as to permit commercial interest to the administrators, it means, the memorandum and objects permit such activities. If the rules and regulations framed are not in violation of the objects, then any drastic change in the rules would determine the manner in which the objects of the association are to be understood. Hence, in our view, changes in the rules and regulations are also material and have to be intimated to the Revenue authorities for examination. Thus, we do not find any fault in the view taken by the DIT that the assessee should take steps by intimating the changes it has made to its memorandum and rules and regulations to the Revenue authorities and to get the same examined and approved so as to claim benefit under section 12A of the Act, for these objects also. The issue whether the changes in these objects vitiate the entire claim for exemption under sections 11 to 13, has to be examined by the Assessing Officer and it is the duty of the assessee to discharge the burden of proof that lies on it for claiming exemption.

24. Learned ld. Advocate submitted that the examination of such matters is in the domain of the Assessing Officer and when DIT has not been granted specific power, he cannot withdraw or cancel the registration.

25. Learned Sr. Special Counsel, on the other hand, argues that the Revenue has not withdrawn or cancelled the registration granted under section 12A and that the DIT has only availed of an opportunity to inform the legal position to the BCCI and has for its benefit enclosed a copy of the extracts from the book “Charitable and Religious Trusts and Institutions” authored by the learned author Mr. S. Rajaratnam, so that the assessee takes suitable action.

26. When it is the stand of the Revenue that the registration granted under section 12A, is not withdrawn or cancelled, the assessee society should not have any grievance. If the Assessing Officer has not understood the letter of the DIT dated 28th December 2009, as not withdrawing or canceling of the registration granted under section 12A, then the assessee can rely on the stand of the Revenue before the Tribunal which is that the registration granted on 12th February 1996, is not cancelled or withdrawn. No party can take contradictory stands in different proceedings on the same issue.

27. Be that as it may, as already stated that the registration under section 12A dated 12th June 1996, has not been extended to the amended clauses of the memorandum and rules and regulations of the society. If the amended memorandum and rules and regulations of the society or the activities of the assessee are such that they are in violation of the provisions of the Act, then the Assessing Officer is free to make assessments in accordance with law. In other words, the Assessing Officer is not bound by the registration granted under section 12A, to the extent the memorandum and rules and regulations have been amended.

28. Coming to the case laws relied upon by the parties, the same are not applicable for the reason that the decision of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Shri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Sangeetha Sabha (supra)

15 The Board of Control for Cricket in India relied upon by the Revenue is distinguishable as on facts it was set aside to the DIT on the ground of natural justice. When it is the stand of the Revenue that the registration under section 12A, is not cancelled or withdrawn, the issue of examining the issue as to whether the DIT has power to withdraw or cancel the registration under section 12AA(3), or under section 12A, prior to amendment, does not arise.

29. To sum up, we are of the opinion that the registration granted under section 12A, on 12th February 1996, and the benefits flowing therefrom, cannot be extended to the amended objects of the society unless the DIT examines the same and comes to a conclusion that the registration under section 12A, can be extended to the revised objects, memorandum and by-laws. It would be illogical to hold that once an institution is registered under section 12A, no matter whatever may be the changes in the objects, rules and regulations, for any number of times, the institution should be given the benefit of section 11 to 13 of the Act, in view of the original registration granted under section 12A. In our opinion, the assessee society should approach the registering authority with the changes and amendments so that the authorities could examine as to whether the amendments in question meet the requirement of law. Since the stand of the Revenue, as already stated, is that the letter dated 18th November 2009, is only advisory in nature and is not an exercise of a statutory power and that it is not a withdrawal or cancellation of registration under section 12A, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable under section 253 of the Act.

30. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th March 2012.