Saving clause and subsequent registration under trust exemption law depend on consistency with the later regime and unchanged objects.

The later income-tax exemption regime imposed additional conditions, including registration and compliance with charitable trust provisions, so a saving clause could apply only where the earlier approval remained consistent with the later framework. On the facts, the earlier exemption was not treated as consistent with the subsequent statutory scheme, and the Assessing Officer was said to have accepted the claim without adequate examination. The proviso to section 12A(2) was also unavailable because the trust's deed had been amended, changing its constitution and objects before registration was granted. The final result recorded was that the revisionary order was sustained and the exemption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assessing Officer's order granting exemption was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for want of proper examination of whether the exemption claimed under the repealed law was saved by the saving provision. (ii) Whether the assessee could claim the benefit of the proviso to section 12A(2) on the basis of subsequent registration when the trust's constitution and objects had been altered.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Officer's order granting exemption was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for want of proper examination of whether the exemption claimed under the repealed law was saved by the saving provision.

Analysis: The exemption available under the earlier law was examined against the scheme of exemption under the later law. The later regime contained additional and materially different requirements, including registration and compliance with the provisions governing charitable or religious trusts. The saving clause could operate only where the earlier approval or recognition was consistent with the corresponding provision in the later enactment. On the facts, the earlier exemption was not held to be consistent with the later statutory framework, and the Assessing Officer was found to have accepted the claim without adequate examination of these distinctions.

Conclusion: The revision on this issue was upheld and the assessee's contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could claim the benefit of the proviso to section 12A(2) on the basis of subsequent registration when the trust's constitution and objects had been altered.

Analysis: The subsequent registration was granted after amendments to the trust deed that changed the character of the trust. The proviso to section 12A(2) applies to pending assessment proceedings only where the objects and activities remain the same. Since the registration was granted on the amended constitution, the benefit of the proviso was not available for the earlier year under appeal. The Assessing Officer's acceptance of exemption on that basis was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 12A(2).

Final Conclusion: The revisionary order was sustained and the exemption claim for the year in question was not allowed on the basis advanced by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under the later income-tax regime cannot be carried forward through the saving clause where the earlier and later provisions are not consistent, and subsequent registration does not apply retrospectively to earlier pending proceedings if the trust's objects or activities have changed.

---