Facts of the
Case
- The petitioner, Environics Trust, is a charitable
organization engaged in environmental and social development activities.
- A survey under Section 133 of the Income Tax Act was conducted by
the department.
- Subsequently, a show cause notice under Section 148A(b) was issued
alleging escaped income of ₹2.23 crore due to wrongful exemption
claimed under Section 11.
- The department alleged:
- Misuse of foreign contributions
- Activities beyond the stated objects of the trust
- Suspicious financial transactions
- The petitioner denied all allegations.
- Thereafter:
- Order under Section 148A(d) passed
- Notice under Section 148 issued initiating reassessment
Issues
Involved
- Whether reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation under
Section 149?
- Whether the Assessing Officer had sufficient “information” to form
belief of escaped income?
- Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked at the
notice stage?
- Whether suppression of material facts by petitioner affects maintainability of writ?
Petitioner’s
Arguments
- Reassessment is time-barred as per amended Section 149
(3-year limitation applicable).
- Extended limitation (10 years) under Finance Act, 2022 cannot be
applied retrospectively.
- No incriminating material was found during survey.
- AO lacked “information” suggesting escapement of income.
- Proceedings are based on roving and fishing enquiry.
- Relied on judicial precedents including:
- Mathew Cherian v. ACIT
Respondent’s
Arguments
- Reassessment valid as:
- Escaped income exceeds ₹50 lakh
- Falls under extended 10-year limitation under Section 149
- AO had tangible material, including:
- Trust deed
- Statement of managing trustee
- Trust engaged in:
- Activities beyond its stated charitable object
- Lobbying through litigation funded via foreign contributions
- Wrongful exemption claimed under Sections 11 & 12
- Petitioner suppressed material facts:
- Cancellation of registration under Sections 12A/12AA/12AB
- Relied on:
- Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
- CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
- Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI
Court’s
Findings / Order
1. On
Limitation under Section 149
- Income exceeding ₹50 lakh and represented as bank deposits
qualifies as “asset”
- Therefore, extended 10-year limitation applies
- Reassessment proceedings held within limitation
2. On Scope
of Judicial Review
- Court reiterated:
- Limited scope under Article 226
- Cannot examine sufficiency or correctness of reasons
- Only existence of prima facie material is required
3. On
Existence of “Information”
- AO relied on:
- Trust deed
- Trustee statement
- Found prima facie diversion of funds and misuse of
exemptions
- Thus, valid satisfaction of escaped income
4. On
Suppression of Facts
- Petitioner failed to disclose:
- Cancellation of charitable registration
- Court held:
- Suppression of material facts disentitles equitable relief
Final Order
- Writ Petition dismissed
- No interference under Article 226
- Reassessment proceedings upheld
Important
Clarifications
- Bank deposits can qualify as “asset” under Section 149 for extended limitation.
- Courts will not interfere at reassessment notice stage unless:
- No material exists
- Jurisdictional error is evident
- Suppression of facts is fatal in writ jurisdiction
- Even charitable trusts can lose exemption if:
- Activities deviate from stated objects
Link to download the order
-https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59908112023CW141912023_102220.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment