Tribunal upholds decision quashing registration cancellation under Income Tax Act

The Tribunal upheld the decision to quash the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, finding no evidence of non-genuine activities or money laundering by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was deemed proper, with principles of natural justice upheld. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the maintenance of the Tribunal's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in quashing the order for cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on alleged money laundering activities.
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that there were no allegations or findings that the activities of the trust are not genuine or not carried out in accordance with its objects.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of Registration Cancellation Order
The revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenged the Tribunal's decision to quash the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] had cancelled the registration based on a survey operation on M/s. Herbicure Health Care Bio-Herbal Research Foundation (Herbicure), which revealed money laundering activities. Herbicure allegedly provided accommodation entries by accepting donations and returning them after retaining a commission. The assessee received Rs. 85,000 from Herbicure, leading to a show-cause notice and subsequent cancellation of registration by the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found that the donation was duly accounted for and there was no evidence of cash payments or money laundering by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not provided any evidence to show a connection between the assessee and the brokers involved in money laundering. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case, Shri Mayapur Dham Pilgrim and Visitors Trust, where the facts were identical, but the assessee's case was deemed stronger. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the cancellation order, deeming it bad in law.

Issue 2: Allegations of Non-Genuine Activities
The revenue argued that the Tribunal ignored the CIT(E)'s findings that the assessee's activities were not genuine. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) failed to record any factual findings to support this claim. The show-cause notice and subsequent order were based solely on the statement of Herbicure's Director, without any direct evidence against the assessee. The assessee's reply, which detailed the receipt and application of the donation, was not considered by the CIT(E).

The Tribunal emphasized that for the CIT(E) to invoke Section 12AA(3), there must be clear findings that the trust's activities are not genuine or not in accordance with its objects. The CIT(E) merely used the language of the statute without substantiating it with facts. The Tribunal found no evidence to connect the assessee with Herbicure's money laundering activities, making the cancellation order unsustainable.

Principles of Natural Justice
The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) violated principles of natural justice by not allowing the assessee to cross-examine Herbicure's Director. The Tribunal held that if the CIT(E) relied on a third-party statement, the assessee should have been given an opportunity for cross-examination. The lack of such an opportunity further invalidated the cancellation order.

Conclusion
The Tribunal's decision to set aside the CIT(E)'s order was upheld. The Tribunal correctly found no evidence of non-genuine activities or money laundering by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue. The Tribunal's order was deemed proper, and the principles of natural justice were upheld.

Final Judgment:
The appeal is dismissed, and the Tribunal's order quashing the cancellation of registration is upheld. The substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.

---