Bombay High Court Quashes Advisory Revoking Sports Body’s Tax-Exempt Status: “ITAT Lacked Jurisdiction to Rule on Merits After Declaring Appeal Non-Maintainable”; Future Exemption to Be Decided Through Proper Legal Proceedings
Rawlaw
Bombay High Court Quashes Advisory Revoking Sports Body’s Tax-Exempt Status: "ITAT Lacked Jurisdiction to Rule on Merits After Declaring Appeal Non-Maintainable"; Future Exemption to Be Decided Through Proper Legal Proceedings
Share this article
Court’s Decision
ITAT exceeded its jurisdiction – After declaring that the advisory was not an order of cancellation and that no appeal was maintainable, ITAT erred in making substantive observations on the validity of the advisory.
Advisory quashed – The advisory dated December 28, 2009, was set aside as it was not a legally valid exercise of statutory power.
Future exemption status to be determined through proper channels – The High Court did not decide whether the sports body should continue to receive tax exemption but directed that the question must be examined by the appropriate tax authorities through proper legal proceedings.
Facts of the Case
The sports body, a registered society, was granted tax exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act in 1996.
It made amendments to its Memorandum of Association (MOA) in 2006 and 2007 but did not notify the Income Tax Department.
The DIT issued a communication on December 28, 2009, stating that because the sports body had amended its objectives without informing the tax authorities, its original registration under Section 12A was no longer valid from the date of amendment.
The sports body challenged this communication before ITAT, arguing that it amounted to an indirect cancellation of its registration.
ITAT ruled that the communication was not a cancellation order and dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. However, ITAT went on to uphold the DIT’s view that the tax exemption was no longer valid due to non-disclosure of amendments.
The sports body filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging ITAT’s observations and also filed a writ petition seeking to quash the advisory letter.
Issues Before the Court
Did ITAT have jurisdiction to make substantive observations on the advisory letter after dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable?
Can an advisory letter, deemed “non-statutory” by the tax department, be used to deny tax exemption or cancel the sports body’s registration under Section 12A?
Petitioner’s (Sports Body’s) Arguments
The advisory letter was, in effect, a cancellation order because it revoked the sports body’s tax-exempt status without following statutory procedures.
Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, which gives tax authorities the power to cancel registration, was introduced only in June 2010. Since the advisory was issued in 2009, it was unlawful and without jurisdiction.
Section 12A(1)(ab), which mandates reapplication for registration when a trust modifies its objectives, was introduced only in 2017. It could not apply retroactively to amendments made in 2006 and 2007.
The amendments were minor and did not alter the fundamental objective of promoting sports, so no intimation was legally required.
ITAT, after ruling that the advisory was not a cancellation order and that the appeal was not maintainable, had no legal authority to adjudicate on its validity.
If the advisory was truly non-statutory, it could not be used to deny tax exemption. The Revenue Department could not take contradictory stances—arguing that the advisory was not an order for the purpose of appeal while treating it as a binding directive in tax assessments.
Respondent’s (Income Tax Department’s) Arguments
The advisory was not a cancellation order but merely informed the sports body of the consequences of amending its objects without intimation.
ITAT correctly ruled that the appeal was not maintainable because no formal cancellation order had been issued.
The sports body failed to notify the Income Tax Department of its amendments despite an undertaking to do so. Therefore, the tax authorities were justified in concluding that its registration no longer survived.
Exemptions under the Income Tax Act must be strictly construed, and the burden was on the sports body to prove that it continued to qualify for tax-exempt status.
Analysis of the Law
Section 12A of the Income Tax Act: Governs registration of trusts and charitable institutions for tax exemption purposes.
Section 12AA(3): Introduced in June 2010, grants tax authorities the power to cancel a registration if they find that the organization is not genuinely engaged in charitable activities.
Section 12A(1)(ab): Introduced in 2017, requires trusts to reapply for registration if they change their objects. This provision is not retrospective.
Supreme Court Precedents on Jurisdiction:
Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar: A court cannot rule on substantive issues after dismissing a case as non-maintainable.
Sri Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: If a court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot adjudicate on merits.
Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties: A tribunal that dismisses an appeal on technical grounds cannot later decide substantive issues.
Precedent Analysis
Allahabad Agricultural Institute v. Union of India (Allahabad HC): Held that tax exemption can be denied if a trust changes its objects without intimation. However, the Bombay High Court clarified that this ruling was in the context of denying a stay on tax recovery and did not justify issuing an advisory letter in place of a statutory cancellation order.
Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs: Held that exemption provisions must be strictly construed. The court acknowledged this principle but emphasized that an advisory letter cannot substitute for a valid cancellation order.
CIT (Exemptions) v. Saifee Hospital Trust (Bombay HC): Held that the burden of proof to establish tax exemption lies on the assessee. However, the court reiterated that exemption questions must be decided through proper statutory proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
ITAT lacked jurisdiction to make substantive findings on the advisory letter after declaring that the appeal was non-maintainable.
If the advisory was truly non-statutory, it could not be used to revoke tax exemption or cancel registration. The Revenue Department could not take contradictory stances, treating the advisory as non-statutory for appeal purposes but binding for tax assessments.
Proper statutory procedure must be followed when cancelling registration or denying exemptions. The advisory letter was not a valid substitute for a formal cancellation order.
Conclusion
Advisory letter dated December 28, 2009, quashed: The court ruled that the Revenue Department had no legal authority to issue an advisory letter that effectively cancelled tax-exempt status without following statutory procedures.
ITAT’s observations on the merits of the advisory declared void: Since ITAT had ruled the appeal was non-maintainable, its further comments were outside its jurisdiction.
Exemption status to be determined through statutory proceedings: The court left open the question of whether the sports body was still entitled to tax exemption, directing that it be decided independently by tax authorities in accordance with the law.
Implications
Tax authorities must follow proper legal procedures before cancelling registrations or denying exemptions.
ITAT and other quasi-judicial bodies must adhere to jurisdictional limits—once an appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable, no further observations on merits should be made.
Registered organizations must ensure compliance with disclosure requirements, as failure to intimate amendments could still impact future exemptions.
Tax litigation must adhere to procedural fairness, preventing arbitrary revocation of exemptions based on informal communications.
