High Court Upholds Income Tax Jurisdiction, Approves Approval Withdrawal, Emphasizes Rural Development

The High Court upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax's jurisdiction under section 263, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The Court found that the approval for donation under section 35CCA had been validly withdrawn before the assessment, deeming it erroneous. Emphasizing the purpose of the exemption for genuine rural development institutions, the Court discussed the doctrine of promissory estoppel in taxation matters. It rejected the argument that the approval withdrawal was ultra vires, stating that the power to grant approval includes the power to withdraw it. The Court's decision supported the Revenue's position, denying the assessee's claim and awarding no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax based on withdrawal of approval u/s 35CCA to a society for donation.

Summary:
The case involved a donation of Rs. 40,000 made by the assessee to a society approved under section 35CCA of the Income-tax Act. The approval was granted by the State Level Committee but later withdrawn with retrospective effect. The Commissioner of Income-tax found the assessment allowing the donation to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, leading to proceedings u/s 263. The Tribunal held that the approval was in force on the assessment date, thus the initiation of proceedings was not proper.

Upon review, the High Court found that the approval had indeed been withdrawn before the assessment was made, making the assessment erroneous. The Court emphasized that the exemption under section 35CCA is meant for genuine rural development institutions, not for tax evasion. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was discussed, noting that public interest must be considered in its application to taxation matters.

The Court rejected the argument that the State Level Committee's decision was u/r 295(4), stating that the power to grant approval inherently includes the power to withdraw it. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction u/s 263, ruling in favor of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the High Court found the Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 to be valid, and answered the reference question in the negative, supporting the Revenue's position. No costs were awarded in the matter.

---