M/s Karumuri Padmanabham Mahalakshmamma Arya Vysya Vrudhashramam, Palakol V. The CIT, Rajahmundry

CO 1/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8068 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: K V N CHARYA
• Keywords: Right to appeal
• Section: 80G; 12AA

Judgement Text

CO NO.1/VIZAG/2012 KARUMURI PADMANABHAM MAHALAKSHMA MMA ARYA VYSYA VRUDHASHRAMAM, PALAKOL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI D. MANMOHAN , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C.O. NO.1/VIZAG/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.313/VIZAG/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A. KARUMURI PADMANABHAM MAHALAKSHMAMMA ARYA VYSYA VRUDHASHRAMAM PALAKOL VS. CIT RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.V.N. CHARYA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 06.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.11.2012 ORDER PER SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT:- THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT, RAJAH MUNDRY. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO APPLICATIONS I.E.:- A. FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT B. FOR GRANT OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPLICATION SEEKING GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/ S 12AA OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED EARLIER. HOWEVER, THE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WITH A DIR ECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER PASSED ANOTHER ORDER ON 2 ND AUGUST, 2011, WHEREIN, HE DECLINED TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/ S 12AA OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AN APPEAL CAN BE FILED ON LY WHEN STATUTE PROVIDES FOR A RIGHT OF APPEAL. SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(1) OF THE ACT, PROVIDES CO NO.1/VIZAG/2012 KARUMURI PADMANABHAM MAHALAKSHMA MMA ARYA VYSYA VRUDHASHRAMAM, PALAKOL 2 FOR THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE ASSESSEE, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WHEN THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT I.E. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAJAHMUNDRY, A CROSS OB JECTION WAS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY HIM. PRESUMABLY, THE CROSS OBJECTION WAS FILED BY DRAWING AUTHORITY FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(4) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE TH AT NO OTHER PROVISION UNDER THE ACT PROVIDES FOR A RIGHT TO FILE A CROSS OBJECT ION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 4. LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 253( 4) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED HARMONIOUSLY, BEARING IN MIND THE OB JECT THAT IN AN APPELLATE FORUM BOTH THE PARTIES SHOULD GET EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS. IN HIS VIEW, WHEREVER A RIGHT I S CONFERRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL, OPPOSITE PARTY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO FILE CROSS OBJECTION. LD. D.R. HAS TAKEN US THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253( 4) OF THE ACT TO IMPRESS UPON THE BENCH THAT THE PROVISION HAS TO BE READ IN THE SPIRIT IN WHICH A RIGHT TO FILE A CROSS OBJECTION IS PROVIDED UNDER THIS AC T. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 253(4) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT A PARTY IS PERMITTED TO FILE A CROSS OBJECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED AGAINST SUCH ORDER OR IN PART THEREOF , WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ONLY IN A CASE WHERE A RIGHT OF APPEAL I S PROVIDED, IN THE EVENT OF NOT PREFERRING APPEAL, HE IS NOT DEBARRED FROM FILI NG A CROSS OBJECTION IN THE EVENT OF OTHER PARTY PREFERRING AN APPEAL. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS THE ADJUDICATING AUTH ORITY AND REVENUE HAS NO RIGHT TO PREFER AN APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY SECTION 25 3(4) OF THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A RIGHT TO FILE A CROSS OBJECTION. LOO KING AT FROM ANOTHER ANGLE, A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL OR CROSS OBJECTION IS PROVI DED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT(A) OR CIT(A) WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CA SE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER. IT WAS THUS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NO RIGHT CO NO.1/VIZAG/2012 KARUMURI PADMANABHAM MAHALAKSHMA MMA ARYA VYSYA VRUDHASHRAMAM, PALAKOL 3 TO PREFER A CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. HAVING REGARD TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(4) OF THE ACT, WE ARE FULLY CONVINCED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NO RIGHT TO FILE A CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C IT, DECLINING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, SINCE HE CANNOT BE AN AGGRIEVE D PARTY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.11.2012 SD/ - SD/ - (B . R . BASKARAN) ( D. MANMOHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 COPY TO 1 KARUMURI PADMANABHAM MAHALAKSHMAMMA ARYA VYSYA VRUD HASHRAMAM, PALAKOL 2 CIT RAJAHMUNDRY 3 THE CIT (A) , RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM