Commissioner of Income Tax V. M/s. Christ Evangelical Luthern Ministries

ITTA/139/2013

AI Insights

The case revolves around the dispute concerning the effective date of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act for M/s Christ Evangelical Lutheran Ministries, Guntur. Initially, the registration was granted effective from 01.04.2006 following an application dated 05.09.2006. However, an earlier application dated 01.07.2004 was not disposed of by the Revenue department, leading the Tribunal to declare a deemed registration from 01.04.2003. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur, appealed against this decision, which was upheld by the High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 744029 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Exemption; Income Tax; Registration; Deemed Registration
• Section: 11; 12AA

Judgement Text

"HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.139 of 2013 Date: 28.06.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. .....Appellant AND M/s Christ Evangelical Luthern Ministries, Guntur. ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.139 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: i. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act was granted to the respondent- assessee with effect from 1.04.2006 on considering its application dated 5.09.2006, whether the order of the Tribunal holding that the said registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act to be granted to the respondent- assessee with effect from 1.04.2003 is not erroneous in law and liable to be set aside? ii. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that since the earlier application of the respondent-assessee dated 1.07.2004 has not been disposed of, the registration granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 12AA of Income Tax Act is deemed to have been granted with effect from 1.04.2003 instead of 1.04.2006, is not erroneous in law and perverse being contrary to the material on record and liable to be set aside? iii. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim of the respondent-assessee for exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act in terms of deemed registration with effect from 1.04.2003? The appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 05.07.2010 in relation to the assessment year 2005-06. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal, at the first instance, has declared that the assessee is deemed to have been granted registration. After passing the order, consequential order has also been passed. The said fact is as follows: “The assessee has filed an application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act on 01.07.2004 and this application was entertained and was not disposed of and kept pending. Thereafter, the assessee filed second application on 5.9.2006, which was allowed and registration was granted with effect from 01.04.2006. Thereafter, the assessing officer did not grant the benefit of registration prior to 2006.” The learned Tribunal after recording the fact of inaction on the part of the Revenue department in not disposing of the application for granting registration filed on 01.07.2004, it was found that there has been no changed circumstances as to the activities of the respondent- assessee. Hence, the application, which was kept pending, was literally disposed of by the learned Tribunal declaring that the respondent-assessee is deemed to have been granted registration with effect from 01.04.2003. Consequently, the learned Tribunal set aside the adverse orders and remanded for fresh hearing. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________ G.ROHINI, J 28.6.2013 Gsn. "