Purandhar Technical Education Society v. CIT(E)

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 12A; 12AA; 12AB

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Whether charitable registration becomes deemed after six months: The reported High Court matter concerns the statutory consequences of non-disposal of a charitable-registration application within six months and the taxpayer's claim to deemed registration. The complete official judgment is required to distinguish any factual registration already granted.

Material facts and background

Briefly the factual matrix of the case is as follows: On 19 November, 2007, the petitioner obtained a registration under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860. The primary object of the petitioner is to promote education. The petitioner is accordingly engaged in educational activities. It is running a school at Pune. 5.

On 14 January, 2008, the petitioner applied for registration under

Section 12A of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that certificate of such registration was granted to the petitioner. From 2008 to 2019, the petitioner had filed its returns, availing benefits of a valid registration under Section 12A of the Act. It is, however, stated that the petitioner could not trace the certificate. Although such benefit was taken by the petitioner for certain number of years, without an objection by the department, subsequently, the tax authorities called upon the petitioner to produce the registration certificate. The petitioner hence made an application on 14 October, 2019 to the respondents to obtain a duplicate certificate of registration under Section 12A of the Act. However, as such application was not responded, a fresh application Page 2 of 16 08 July, 2024

was made by the petitioner on 19 April, 2022. The petitioner had contended that both the applications were not decided and duplicate certificate was also not issued to the petitioner. 6.

In the aforesaid circumstances, on 25 March, 2022, the petitioner

applied for a fresh provisional certificate under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act, which was in the prescribed form (Form 10A) as per Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Although the application for provisional registration was made on 04 April, 2022, an order on Form No.10AC under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) for assessment years 2022-23 to 2026-27 was passed by the competent authority thereby granting registration to the petitioner. Copy of such registration is annexed at Exhibit-E to the petition, which would indicate that in item no.6 thereof, the registration was granted under the said provision on 04 April, 2022 (item no.7), for the period as set out in item no.8 i.e. from assessment year 2022-23 to assessment year 2026-27 (for 5 years). 7.

Appellant / assessee submissions

Mr. Naniwadekar, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the

granted on 04 April 2022. On such application made by the petitioner, albeit inadvertently, respondent no.1 issued notices to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to inter alia submit copy of the provisional registration granted under Section 12AB of the Act (as per Form No.10 AC). The petitioner submitted its detailed reply on 15 February 2023, as also furnished to respondent no.1 a copy of the registration granted to the petitioner under Section 12AB of the Act on 04 April 2022, which was valid for 5 years, i.e., for the assessment years 2022-23 to 2026-27. 8.

decision of the Supreme Court in Society for Promn. of Edn. (supra) and as also urged by the Revenue before the High Court of Allahabad in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harshit Foundation Sehmalpur Jalalpur Jaunpur7, the High Court had rejected the Revenue’s contention when it observed thus:“10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since judgment of this Court in Society for the Promn. of Edn. (supra) 7 [2022] 139 taxmann.com 55 (All.) Page 14 of 16 08 July, 2024

Revenue / respondent submissions

On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revenue

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

2. There is no appearance on behalf of the sole respondent despite service of notice and adjournment sought for on a couple of occasions earlier. 3. The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered under the provision. 4. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, has raised an apprehension that in the case of the respondent, since the date of application was of 24.02.2003, at the worst, the same would operate only after six months from the date of the application. 5. We see no basis for such an apprehension since that is the only logical sense in which the Judgment could be understood. Therefore, in order to disabuse any apprehension, we make it clear that the registration of the application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act in the case of the respondent shall take effect from 24.08.2003. 6. Subject to the above clarification and leaving all other questions of law open, the...

Naniwadekar submits that in passing such order, it was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court the prior decision in Society for Promn. of Edn. (supra). The observations of the Supreme Court in dismissing the petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Harshit Foundation (supra), read thus:“1. We have heard Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The only question which is posed for consideration before the High Court was whether on non-deciding the application for registration under Section 12AA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) within a period of six months, there shall be deemed registration or not. 3. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with and considered in detail by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in its decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Muzafar Nagar Development Authority [2013] 38 taxmann.com 21/219 Taxman 318. 4. After considering in detail the provisions of Section 12AA (2) of the Act and having found that there is no specific provision in the Act by which it provides that on non-deciding the...

has been confirmed by Supreme Court while disposing appeal, therefore, it must be now taken that law of deemed grant of registration has been confirmed by Supreme Court. However, we find that Supreme Court in the judgment dated 16-2-2016, has held that all other questions of law are left open, meaning thereby question of law raised in appeal by C.I.T. has not been decided, but left open, hence, it cannot be said that judgment of this Court has merged with the judgment of Supreme Court on the above question of law, which was decided by this Court in Society for the Promotion of Education (supra).

considering Mr. Naniwadekar’s apprehension that it is not unlikely, that respondent no.1 would take further steps to cancel the registration of the petitioner dated 04 April, 2022, in such event, his contention is that the petitioner would assert to be fully protected under the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur v. Society for Promn. of Edn., Allahabad (supra). Be that as it may, such apprehension of the petitioner at this stage, is quite premature, as there is nothing on record that respondent no.1 has initiated any action to cancel the registration of the petitioner. We, therefore, do not delve on such issue and keep all contentions of the petitioner open to be asserted at the appropriate time and in the appropriate proceedings, if the need so arises. 25.

Operative decision and relief

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Allahabad vs Commissioner of
• Kanpur v. Society for
• Kanpur v. Society for Promn. of Edn
• Court in Harshit Foundation Sehmalpur Jalalpur Jaunpur v. Commissioner of
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Muzafar
• Court in Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and
• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
• Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harshit Foundation Sehmalpur Jalalpur

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Whether charitable registration becomes deemed after six months. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Whether charitable registration becomes deemed after six months. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Keep registration, audit-report, Form 10/10B/10BB and filing timestamps together; many exemption disputes are procedural and depend on when the form existed versus when it was uploaded.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance