Section 351 Specified violation.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

These texts set out Clause/Section 351 dealing with "specified violation" by a registered non-profit organisation under the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) and the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025. They matter because they prescribe grounds and procedure for cancellation of registration of non-profit organisations and thus affect taxpayers (registered non-profit entities), tax administration (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and Assessing Officers), and the broader charitable sector. Effective/commencement dates: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Clause/Section 351 appears in Part IV (Violations) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 / Income-tax Act, 2025. The provision addresses "specified violation" by a registered non-profit organisation and grants the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner power to inquire, call for documents, and pass orders including cancellation of registration. Definitions or extended explanations of terms used (e.g., "registered non-profit organisation", "objects", "commercial activity", or cross-referenced sections 332, 345, 346, 270(13)) are Not stated in the document.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

The provision enumerates specified violations by a registered non-profit organisation, namely:

• application of income otherwise than for its objects;
• carrying out commercial activity in contravention of section 345 or 346 (enacted) / section 345 (Bill);
• application of any part of total income for private religious purposes which does ensure/enure for the benefit of the public;
• post-commencement organisations for charitable purpose applying income for benefit of particular religious community or caste other than SCs/STs or backward classes or women and children;
• activities that are not genuine or not carried out in accordance with registration conditions;
• non-compliance with requirements of other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a) and where the order/direction/decree is either undisputed or final;
• false or incorrect information in the application referred to in section 332(1).

Procedure: Where the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner has noticed one or more specified violations, receives a reference from the Assessing Officer u/s 270(13), or the organisation is selected per Board-formulated risk strategy, the officer shall call for documents/inquiries, and then pass an order in writing either cancelling registration (after reasonable opportunity of being heard) for such tax year and subsequent years if satisfied violation occurred, or not cancelling if not so satisfied; copy to AO and organisation. Timeline: order to be passed within six months calculated from end of quarter in which first notice was issued calling for documents/inquiry.

Interpretation

Legislative intent indicated by text: the provision aims to create a statutory mechanism to protect the tax base by identifying specified breaches by non-profit organisations and providing a structured administrative route for cancellation of registration, incorporating procedural safeguards (opportunity of being heard, timelines). The text signals an intent to link tax-registration consequences to both internal misapplication of funds and external non-compliance with other laws.

Exceptions/Provisos

Carve-outs or conditions in the text include:

• Cancellation is to be preceded by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
• Non-compliance under other laws is actionable only where the order/direction/decree "has either not been disputed, or has attained finality" (enacted text).
• Specific temporal limitation on decision-making: order must be passed within six months from quarter-end of first notice.

Illustrations

• Example 1: A registered non-profit uses grants to pay director's personal expenses - this falls under clause (a) (application other than for objects) and can trigger inquiry and potential cancellation if established. (Facts consistent with text.)
• Example 2: A post-commencement charitable organisation awards scholarships exclusively to a single non-protected religious community (not SC/ST/backward classes/women/children) - under clause (d) this could be a specified violation. (Facts consistent with text.)
• Example 3: A registered non-profit running a business arm in contravention of section 346 (enacted) would fall under clause (b) and could be subject to cancellation proceedings. (Facts consistent with text.)

Interplay

The provision cross-refers to sections 345, 346, 332(7)/(7)(a), 332(1), and 270(13). Specific interaction with Rules, Notifications or Circulars is Not stated in the document. The provision situates administrative power with Principal Commissioner/Commissioner while involving Assessing Officer by reference and communication; how this aligns with broader registration/renewal procedures or appeal remedies is Not stated in the document.

Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

• Reference to section 345/346 (commercial activity): Old Bill (Document 2) lists contravention only of section 345; the enacted Section 351 (Document 1) lists contravention of the provisions of section 345 or 346.
  • Practical impact: expansion of trigger-more commercial-activity-related conduct (covered in section 346) can now constitute a specified violation, increasing exposure to cancellation for NGOs engaged in commercial activities that fall within section 346.
• Wording on timing/temporal scope of cancellation: Old Bill states cancellation may be "for such tax year during which such specified violation took place and all subsequent tax years." Enacted Section omits the phrase "for such tax year during which such specified violation took place," instead providing cancellation "for such tax year and all subsequent tax years."
  • Practical impact: enacted text is arguably broader or at least less temporally precise; it appears to allow cancellation beginning with the relevant tax year (same as Bill) but the slight drafting change reduces explicit limitation language-practically similar but drafting difference could affect interpretation of retrospective/prospective reach if disputes arise.
• Reference to compliance with other laws (section 332(7)): Old Bill refers to "requirements u/s 332(7)"; enacted Section refers to "requirements of any other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a) and the order, direction or decree... has either not been disputed, or has attained finality."
  • Practical impact: enacted provision clarifies that the non-compliance is with "any other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a)" (narrower/clarified cross-reference) and adds explicit textual emphasis that the order/direction/decree must either be undisputed or final. This makes the ground for cancellation contingent on a final/undisputed determination under those other laws.
• Typographical/word choice correction: Enacted Section corrects "enure" to "ensure" (via corrigenda).
  • Practical impact: corrects potential ambiguity in clause (c) regarding private religious purposes "which does ensure for the benefit of the public" (document shows correction but intended meaning remains that such private religious application must not ensure public benefit). Substance unaffected except removal of typographical error.
• Minor drafting/formatting differences: Enacted provision adds subparagraph labeling and slightly reorders phrasing (e.g., subsection (2)(a) temporal phrase "Where,--" vs Bill's "Where during any tax year,--").
  • Practical impact: no substantive change except possible differences in interpretive emphasis on temporal locus of detection; enacted text's condition list in (2) is substantively the same but more tightly cross-referenced in some places.

Practical Implications

• Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: strict internal compliance with objects and permitted uses of income; careful structuring of any commercial activities to avoid contravention of sections 345/346; avoidance of private-religious-purpose applications that do not benefit the public; adherence to registration conditions; ensure accuracy of initial registration application (section 332(1)).
• Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: documentary evidence of application of income to objects, minutes/authorisations for activities, contracts and accounts for commercial activities, demonstration of public benefit for religious activities, evidence of compliance with other laws (and any orders/directions) and dispute status thereof, and documentation submitted in registration application-since false/incorrect application information is a specified violation.

Key Takeaways

• Clause/Section 351 lists seven discrete grounds that may constitute a "specified violation" leading to cancellation of registration of a registered non-profit organisation.
• Enacted text expands commercial-activity trigger to include contravention of section 346 in addition to section 345, broadening potential exposure.
• Cancellation can be ordered by Principal Commissioner/Commissioner after inquiry and hearing, and must be communicated to the Assessing Officer and organisation.
• Non-compliance under other laws is actionable where the external order/direction/decree is undisputed or final, per enacted text.
• Administrative timeline: order must be passed within six months from the quarter-end of the first notice calling for documents/inquiry.
• Accuracy of registration application is critical-false or incorrect information is an explicit ground for specified violation.
• Certain drafting differences between Bill and Act (e.g., reference to section 346 and clarified cross-reference to section 332(7)(a)) may have practical consequences for scope and enforcement.

Full Text:

Section 351 Specified violation.