Reopening of assessment under the Income Tax Act requires fresh tangible material; mere change of opinion is insufficient for valid reassessment.

JUDGMENT :

(per G. S. Kulkarni, J.):

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the validity of notice dated 31 March 2019 issued by respondent no.4/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2(1)-Mumbai, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the IT Act”) to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for Assessment Year 2014-15, as also an order dated 28 June 2022 passed by respondent no.4 rejecting the petitioner’s objection to the reopening of the assessment. The impugned reopening is within a period of four years.

2. The relevant facts need to be noted:-

The petitioner is a Public Trust deemed to be constituted and governed under the State Legislation namely under the provisions of the “Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act, 2004” (for short, “2004 Act”). It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner manages and administers the “Sai Baba Temple”, at Shirdi which is worshiped by millions of devotees from all over the world. Also, the petitioner is stated to be involved in religious and charitable activities. The petitioner has described the history in relation to Shirdi temple and the faith, which the people have in worshiping “Shri Sai Baba” who departed from the mortal world on 15 October 1918.

3. The formation of the petitioner trust and its aims, objectives were inter alia to spread the universal religion of Saibaba. It is the case of the petitioner that the devotees of Saibaba started worshiping the ‘Samadhi’ from 27 October 1918 being the “Bhandara Day”. They also started a fund known as the “Samarth Sainath Kothi” for continuing the worship at the Samadhi Mandir where his worldly remains were interred and consequently, the Samadhi Mandir as well as the Shirdi town has become a place of pilgrimage of national and international importance to the millions of devotees of Saibaba.

4. The petitioner has contended that earlier in the year 1953, a Public Trust under the name of “Shirdi Sansthan of Shri Saibaba” was constituted and the same was registered under the provisions of the Public Trust Act, 1950 under Registration No.E-69, Ahmednagar, which is a classification given to the Trusts whose objects are both religious and charitable. The trust also obtained the registration under the provisions of Section 12A of the IT Act from the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, as a Trust for charitable and religious purposes being Registration No. TR/3033 dated 24 August 1977. Recently, by an order dated 17 March 2008 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (v) of Clause 23C of Section 10 of the IT Act, an approval was granted to the petitioner for the purposes of the said provision subject to the conditions as mentioned in the said order. Also on 25 March 2009, the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) issued a Certificate under Section 80G of the IT Act inter alia on the conditions as contained in the said certificate.

5. It is the petitioner’s case that by a letter dated 27 January 2012, the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) while referring to the amendment which was made to Section 80G(5)(vi) by the Finance Act (No.2) of 2009, it was stated that there was no need to seek a renewal of the Certificate already issued under Section 80G and that the said certificate, which was valid upto 31 March 2012, was held to be valid from 01 April 2012 onwards till it was rescinded. Such extension of the validity was subject to the same terms and conditions as contained in the original Certificate under Section 80G. It is stated that Certificate issued under Section 80G of the IT Act was basically to enable the devotees who intended to avail tax exemption, provided that the donations by devotees were received by cheque or by cash upto Rs.2,000/- as specified in Section 80G(5D) of the IT Act. The petitioner contends that the administration of the public trust was thereafter regulated by a scheme framed by the C