IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax II, Thane Appellant V/s. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron and Steel Market Committee Respondent Mr.Tejveer Singh for Appellant. Mr.Mandar Vaidya a/w. Mr.Kalpesh S. Turalkar for Respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 17th JULY, 2017. PER COURT : 1] Commissioner cancelled registration of Respondent invoking its power under Section 12AA(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ). 2] Mr.Singh, learned counsel submits that notice was issued to Assessee by Commissioner for withdrawing registration granted to Assessee under Section 12A of Act by invoking its power under Section 12AA (3) of Act. According to learned counsel, proviso to Section 2(15) of Act as http://www.itatonline.org 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2017 11:09:45 ::: osk 45 itxa 43 2015.odt existed then will have to be applied while considering present matter and in view of said proviso, as activity of Respondent involved carrying on of activity in nature of trade, commerce or business, Respondent does not remain charitable institution. action of Commissioner was justifiable. Respondent collects fees and cess. In view of that proviso to Section 2(15), as it existed then, would clearly apply making Assessee liable for cancellation of its registration. said aspect has not been considered by Tribunal in its correct perspective and thereby arrived at erroneous conclusion. 3] learned counsel for Respondent submits that Tribunal has rightly considered provisions of Section 12AA(3) of Act. Commissioner has nowhere given finding that activity of Respondent is not genuine activity or activity of Respondent is not being carried out in accordance with object of institution. learned counsel further relies on CBDT Circular No.21 of 2016, dated 27 th May, 2016 and order of this Court in case of Director of Income Tax vs. Khar Gymkhana, reported in [2016] 385 ITR 162. 4] We have considered submissions. http://www.itatonline.org 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2017 11:09:45 ::: osk 45 itxa 43 2015.odt 5] It is apparent from record that Commissioner has invoked its powers under Section 12(AA)(3) of Act. said powers are circumscribed by limitations imposed under Sub Section 3 of Section 12AA of Act. Commissioner, nowhere has given finding that activities of Respondent institution are not genuine one or that said activity carried out are not in consonance with object of institution. Commissioner has merely relied on proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 15 of Act, as it stood then. said proviso has subsequently gone amendment. 6] CBDT Circular No.21 of 2016, dated 27 th May, 2016, has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Khar Gymkhana (supra). 7] Even considering proviso, as it stood then, case has not been made out so as to invoke Section 12AA(3) of Act. Tribunal as rightly considered said aspect. 8] In view of that, Appeal is bereft of any substantial questions of law. Appeal as such is dismissed. No costs. (A.M. BADAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) http://www.itatonline.org 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2017 11:09:45 ::: TheCommissionerofIncome-tax-II,Thane v. TheMumbaiMetropolitanRegionalIron andSteelMarketCommittee