1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :: 29.10.2011 CORAM :: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.12031 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dr. Patchaimal, S/o. P. Peria Thambi, Cendect, (Centre for Development and Communication Trust), Rep. by its Director cum Secretary, No.1/167, West Street, Kamatchipuram, Theni District. ...... Petitioner -Vs - The Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2, V. P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002 ...... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in C.A.No.464/75/CIT - 1/1985-86 dated 13.06.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner :: Mr. E. Somasundaram For Respondent :: Ms. S. Srimathi for Mr. R. Sathiamoorthy O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the respondent, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 293C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), cancelling the Registration granted to the petitioner under Section 12A(a) of the Act. 2. Heard Mr. E. Somasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Srimathi, learned counsel, representing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner was granted Registration under Section 12AA of the Act by the respondent, way back on 05.06.1986. Consequently, an exemption under Section 80G of the Act was also granted and it was renewed. 4. However, the last application for renewal of the exemption under Section 80G of the Act was rejected by an order dated 29.01.2010 and the petition for Review filed by the petitioner was also rejected later. 5. In the meantime, the respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 12AA(3) of the Act on 25.04.2011, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the Registration should not be cancelled. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 reason stated by the respondent for the proposed action was that the amendments to the Deed of Trust were not effected through a decree of Court. 6. In response to the show cause notice, the Administrative Officer of the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 10.05.2011 and 13.06.2011. Thereafter, the respondent passed the order impugned in the writ petition, holding that the activities of the Trust are not genuine and that it is not being carried in accordance with the objects. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. As against the order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 253(1)(c) of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 253 of the Act, the limitation for filing the Appeal is sixty days from the date, on which the order is communicated to the assessee. Sub section (5) of Section 253 of the Act also empowers the Appellate Tribunal to admit the Appeal beyond the period of limitation, upon the appellant showing sufficient cause. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file an Appeal. 8. This is in view of the fact that the respondent appears to have followed the principles of natural justice. Though by the notice dated 09.06.2011, the respondent fixed the date of hearing as 20.06.2011, the Administrative Officer of the petitioner seems to have appeared on 13.06.2011 and made his submissions. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent produced the note sheet, wherein it is recorded as follows:- "Mr. R. Pachaikannan was present. The case was heard". 10. At the bottom of the above endorsement made on 13.06.2011, the Administrative Officer of the petitioner has also signed. Therefore, it is clear that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. 11. Once it is clear that the respondent had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and once it is also clear that there was no violation of Rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice, the petitioner cannot bye-pass the alternative remedy. 12. However, I should also point out the fact that the amendments to a Deed of Trust do not necessarily require an approval by a Civil Court. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the only provision, under which certain directions could be sought from a Civil Court. The directions that could be sought from a Civil Court are enlisted in clause (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amendment to the object clause of a Deed of Trust is not one of the matters included under clauses (a) to (h) of Section 92(1) of the Act. Though a Civil Court has a parens patriae jurisdiction over public charitable trusts and is competent to issue any kind of direction for the proper administration of a public charitable trust, it is not necessary in all cases for the Trustees to go before the Civil Court to seek amendment to the objects of the Trust. Therefore, to this extent, the respondent appears to have gone on a wrong footing, though on that ground I would not like to interfere with the said order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 13. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 253(1) of the Act. If the petitioner files an Appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Appellate Tribunal shall exercise the power under sub-section (5) of Section 253 of the Act and entertain the Appeal against the said order, without reference to the period of limitation. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To: The Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2, V. P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai - 625 002. +1. CC to Mr.E.Somasundaram, Advocate, SR.No. 37153 Dpn/- W.P(MD)No.12031 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 29.10.2011 TR :31.10.2011: 3p/3c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/