Board of Control Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Tribunal couldn’t overstep its authority by concluding on merits when it had already concluded Appeal was not maintainable
Conclusion: Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings regarding its validity or otherwise. Respondents couldn’t rely in the proceedings connected with the assessment of the BCCI or proceedings connected with the cancellation of BCCI’s registration under Section 12A.
Held: Assessee-society was established under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The Memorandum of Association of the BCCI was amended on 01 June 2006 and 21 August 2007. However, such changes were not intimated to the Tax Authorities who had granted registration under Section 12A. DIT Exemptions wrote to BCCI that since BCCI had modified its objects and no intimation of such modification was sent to Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Mumbai (second Respondent) it was quite clear that the registration granted to BCCI u/s.12A did not survive from the date on which the objects were changed i.e. 01.06.2006. Aggrieved by the aforementioned communication/order, the BCCI filed an appeal before Tribunal. Revenue submitted that DIT, by the impugned communication/order had neither cancelled nor withdrawn the registration dated granted to the BCCI under Section 12A. He contended that by the impugned communication/order, the DIT had merely intimated the BCCI of the consequences of changes in the objects of the BCCI. Tribunal accepted the Revenue’s contention that the impugned communication/order did not amount to either cancellation or withdrawal of registration under Section 12A. On this basis, the ITAT held that the BCCI’s Appeal was not maintainable under Section 253. After recording the above conclusion in the impugned order, ITAT addressed the merits of the communication/order and virtually held that the DIT’s view in that communication/order was correct. Assessee filed an Income Tax Appeal which was dismissed. On appeal before High Court. It was held that Tribunal after having upheld the Revenue’s contention [whether rightly or wrongly] exceeded its jurisdiction in examining the impugned communication/order on its merits and recording observations tending to uphold the impugned communication/order on its merits. The bench stated that Tribunal after concluding that the BCCI’s Appeal before it “was not maintainable”, exceeded its jurisdiction in recording the above observations virtually upholding the impugned communication/order. The authority or the jurisdiction to uphold the impugned communication/ order would be derived by Tribunal upon concluding that the Appeal before it was maintainable. Once again, it was clarified that the issues of the exemption or cancellation of registration on merits were left open because they will have to be decided by the prescribed statutory authorities in the manner prescribed under the statute.
