IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2015 DIT (Exemptions) Appellant V/s. Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises Respondent Mr.Ashok Kotangle a/w. Ms.Padma Divakar for Appellant. Mr.R. Murlidharan a/w. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for Respondent. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2017. PER COURT : 1] Mr.Kotangle, learned counsel for Appellant submits that considering provisions of section 215 along with its proviso, Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) had rightly invoked its powers under section 12AA(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) and cancelled registration. activities as carried out by Assessee were in nature of trade, commerce or business etc. During Assessment Year 2009 10 huge receipts were earned. As such, DIT (Exemptions) had rightly passed order. 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2017 10:52:25 ::: osk 29 itxa 511 2015.odt 2] According to learned counsel, considering receipts shown by Assessee in its income and expenditure account of interest on investments, guarantee fees, annual services fees, pension interest income, recoveries from MLI's on claim paid makes it ample clear that Assessee is engaging in activities, which are in nature of business deriving systematic and huge income. 3] learned counsel for Respondent supports order of Tribunal and submits that Respondent has at no material point of time deviated from its activities since date of its registration. 4] We have gone through judgment delivered by us in case of Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron and Steel Market Committee in Income Tax Appeal No.43 of 2015, decided on 17 th July, 2017. We had observed in paragraph 5 to 7 as under; 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 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2017 10:52:25 ::: osk 29 itxa 511 2015.odt 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 27th 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. 5] In present case also, ground enumerated in section 12AA(3) of Act are not satisfied to cancel registration. 6] appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed. No costs. (A.M. BADAR, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 04/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2017 10:52:25 ::: DIT(Exemptions) v. CreditGuaranteeFundTrust forMicroandSmallEnterprise