IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Advantage India Vs. The Pr. C.I.T

101-102, Oriental House Central - 2 Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAATA 3811 F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCA Department By : Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]

Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the PCIT(C)-2, New Delhi, dated 21.12.2018 cancelling the Registration granted to the assessee (hereinafter called as Society).

2. The assessee originally filed grounds of appeal in Form 36. Later it filed an additional ground under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules, vide letter dated 24.04.2023. Subsequently, it filed a letter dated 23.01.2024 seeking admittance of substituted grounds of appeal as under: 1. “The Ld. Pr. CIT (Central) grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in initiating proceedings on the basis of a defective notice, not specifying the section being invoked for cancellation of registration, being against the principles of natural justice and hence any order in consequence of such defective notice is void being without proper jurisdiction.

2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, in view of the facts and legal position, in Sec. 127 power of transfer of jurisdiction is given from one Assessing Officer to other Assessing officer not from CIT to CIT (as CIT is not an assessing officer). Hence in the present case, assumption of jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT(Central)-II U/s 127(2) is bad in law. Consequently, the show cause notice issued as well as the consequent order passed by the Pr. CIT(Central)- II, is void ab-initio, illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed being unsustainable in the eyes of law.

3. (a) The Ld. Pr. CIT(Central) grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking section 12AA(3) of the Act for cancelling the Registration granted u/s 12A without the requisite preconditions contained therein being fulfilled. The reasoning stated by the Hon'ble commissioner do not give him a valid jurisdiction to invoke section 12AA(3) at that relevant point of time (CBDT circular 21 of 2016 dated 26 May 2016) Consequently order of the Commissioner cancelling registration U/s 12A, devoid of valid jurisdiction, needs to be set aside.

(b) Without prejudice to ground 1 above, the Ld. Pr. CIT(Central) grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in cancelling the Registration granted u/s 12A based on considerations which are not relevant for the cancellation of registration under section 12AA(3) of the Act. Issues of incomes are outside the ambit of section 12AA(3) and issues relating of application of funds/income, being matters of assessment are not relevant for invocation of section 12AA(3)

(c) Ld. Pr. CIT(Central) grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking the provision of section 12AA(3) of the Act on the basis of his finding that the provisions of section

13(1)(c)(ii) are applicable on the assessee.

4. Without prejudice to grounds above, order of cancellation of registration is a quasi-judicial order, having serious civil consequences, the CIT had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration certificate once granted by him under section 12A with retrospective effect, there being no express provision in the section. Consequently, the commissioner's order cancelling registration from back date/since inception being devoid of valid jurisdiction, is invalid and needs to be set aside.

5. That the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to add, amend, delete modify or alter the aforesaid grounds of appeal.

3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

4. We find that substituted grounds of appeal taken vide letter dated 23.01.2024, has raised the basic issue of assu