Appeal successful: Trust's registration restored as activities deemed charitable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the DIT(E) and restoring the registration of the appellant trust. It held that the withdrawal of registration was not justified under section 12AA(3) as the trust's activities remained charitable. The decision emphasized that the insertion of provisos in section 2(15) did not warrant retrospective cancellation of registration. The appeal was decided in favor of the assessee on 28th May 2014.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the withdrawal/cancellation of registration under section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of whether the activities of the appellant trust are for charitable purposes.
3. Applicability of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act to the appellant trust.
4. Retrospective effect of the withdrawal of registration from AY 2009-10.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Withdrawal/Cancellation of Registration under Section 12AA(3):
The assessee appealed against the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai's order dated 7.12.2011, which withdrew the registration granted under section 12AA(3). The grounds of appeal stated that the withdrawal was "bad in law, void ab-initio and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder." The Tribunal examined the scope and ambit of section 12AA(3), which allows the Commissioner to withdraw registration if the activities of the trust are not genuine or not carried out in accordance with its objects. The Tribunal concluded that the DIT(E) was not justified in withdrawing the registration merely due to the insertion of provisos in section 2(15) with effect from 1.4.2009.

2. Determination of Whether the Activities of the Appellant Trust are for Charitable Purposes:
The appellant trust, constituted by the Government of India and SIDBI, aimed to provide effective credit guarantees for SSI loans without collateral securities. The trust was initially granted registration under section 12A on 18.10.2001. The DIT(E) argued that the trust's activities were in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, thus contravening section 2(15). However, the Tribunal noted that the trust's activities had not changed and were genuinely carried out in accordance with its charitable objects. The Tribunal cited previous decisions, including Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority V/s ADIT(E), which held that registration could not be withdrawn if the activities remained genuine and aligned with the trust's objects.

3. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act:
The DIT(E) contended that the trust's activities fell under the proviso to section 2(15), which excludes entities engaged in trade, commerce, or business from being considered charitable if their receipts exceed a specified limit. The Tribunal, referencing the CBDT Circular No.11/2008, clarified that the proviso does not apply to entities engaged in "relief of the poor, education, or medical relief." The Tribunal emphasized that the trust's activities were for the benefit of the underprivileged and did not have a profit motive, thus falling within the definition of "charitable purposes" under section 2(15).

4. Retrospective Effect of the Withdrawal of Registration from AY 2009-10:
The DIT(E) withdrew the registration with retrospective effect from AY 2009-10, citing the amended provisions of section 2(15). The Tribunal found this action contrary to the principles of law, as the registration once granted under section 12A could not be withdrawn retrospectively based solely on subsequent amendments. The Tribunal reiterated that the power to withdraw registration under section 12AA(3) is limited to instances where the trust's activities are not genuine or not carried out in accordance with its objects, neither of which was applicable in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the DIT(E) and restoring the registration of the appellant trust. The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of registration was not justified under the provisions of section 12AA(3) and that the trust's activities remained charitable in nature. The decision emphasized that the insertion of provisos in section 2(15) did not warrant the retrospective cancellation of registration. The appeal was thus decided in favor of the assessee, and the order was pronounced on 28th May 2014.

---