CIT(E) cannot revoke section 10(23C)(iv) approval when organization maintains 12A and 80G charitable status

ITAT Delhi held that CIT(E)'s revocation of section 10(23C)(iv) approval was unsustainable. The assessee organization maintained its charitable status under sections 12A and 80G, creating inconsistency in revenue's position. The Tribunal ruled that compliance conditions must be examined annually, and violations in specific years cannot justify complete approval revocation. Revenue failed to demonstrate deviation from core charitable objects for which approval was initially granted. The assessee's medical relief activities for the poor fell within charitable purposes under section 2(15), making the commercial nature argument inapplicable. Appeal decided in favor of assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Charitable Activities under Section 2(15) read with Section 10(23C) of the IT Act.
2. Findings of Special Auditor regarding genuineness and incidental nature of activities.
3. Reliance on ITAT's previous order and its acceptance by Revenue.
4. Validity of assessment order based on revoked approval under Section 10(23C)(iv).

Summary:

1. Charitable Activities under Section 2(15) read with Section 10(23C) of the IT Act:
The Revenue argued that the assessee was not carrying out charitable activities as defined under Section 2(15) read with Section 10(23C) of the IT Act. The Tribunal, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee's activities, including the 'Pehel Project' and 'NACO Project', were indeed charitable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee promoted family planning and health among low-income women and did not derive undue commercial benefits from these activities.

2. Findings of Special Auditor regarding genuineness and incidental nature of activities:
The Special Auditor alleged that the assessee's activities were commercial rather than charitable. The Tribunal dismissed these allegations, noting that the assessee's activities were in line with its charitable objectives and that the revenue authorities failed to provide contrary material evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's compliance with pricing regulations and the absence of allegations from government agencies supported the charitable nature of its activities.

3. Reliance on ITAT's previous order and its acceptance by Revenue:
The CIT(A) relied on a previous ITAT order which quashed the CIT(E)'s decision to revoke the assessee's approval under Section 10(23C)(iv). The Tribunal reiterated that the Revenue's appeal did not present any new arguments or evidence that would warrant a different conclusion. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., emphasizing that non-acceptance of an appellate order by the Revenue does not justify non-compliance unless stayed by a competent court.

4. Validity of assessment order based on revoked approval under Section 10(23C)(iv):
The Tribunal found that the assessment order, which was based on the revoked approval under Section 10(23C)(iv), was invalid. Since the ITAT had already restored the approval, the assessment order had no basis and was liable to be quashed. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked substance and dismissed it.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee's activities were charitable and the assessment order based on the revoked approval was invalid. The Tribunal emphasized the need for cogent evidence to revoke charitable status and the importance of following appellate decisions unless stayed by a competent court.

---