Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kangra V. CIT, Shimla

ITA 1181/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9038 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL SEHGAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Condonation of delay
• Section: 12; 12AA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) DEV DARSHAN SUD, PRESIDENT & SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1181/CHD/2010 (U/S 12AA) M/S AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET VS. THE CIT, COMMITTEE, KANGRA SHIMLA PAN NO. AACTA4554B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUNIL SEHGAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAVI SARANGAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2016 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT, SHIMLA DATED 20.7.2010 WHEREIN THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS RE FUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING AN APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 1 0A, SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FROM THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-2004. THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO POWER VESTED IN HIS OFFICE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR RE GISTRATION AND THAT REGISTRATION IF AT ALL CAN BE GRANTED ONLY W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010-11 AS THE APPLICATION FILED WAS ON 24.8.2009. 2 2. MR. SUNIL SEHGAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AND GRA NTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BL E PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II VS. MARKET COMMITTEE, GRAIN M ARKET, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH (2010) 43 IT REPS 141 (P&H) DATED 29.4.2010. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BL E RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT V KRISH UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, SHRI MADHOPUR (2011) 331 ITR 174 (RAJ). 3. THE LD. DR, SHRI RAVI SARANGAL, CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING AN AP PLICATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 4. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT LD . CIT(A) IS WRONG IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO GRAN T REGISTRATION RETROSPECTIVELY I.E. W.E.F. 01.04.2003. 5. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II, CHANDIGARH VS. M/S MARKET COMMITTEE, CHANDIGARH (2010) 43 I.T. REP S 141(P&H) HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5.THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE LAST PARA OF ITS ORDER. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT HAD THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT BEEN A PA RTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DELHI BENCH WHERE 251-MARKET COMMITTEES OF PUNJ AB AND HARYANA WERE PARTIES, THEN THEQUESTION OF SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY W OULD NOT HAVE ARISEN. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONDONED THE DELAY IN ITS ORDER DATED 14.3,2005, WHICH IS NOW REPORTED AS MARKET CO MMITTEE SULLAR GHARAT AND OTHERS V. GIT, (2005) 94 TTJ (DEL) 692. AGAINST THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE DELHI BENCH EVEN THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, HAS BEEN DISMISSED . THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT HAD ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION, WHICH WAS DELAYED BY ABO UT THREE YEARS, AND SOUGHT CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE PRAYER FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002 WAS BASED ON THE FACTS THAT ALL OTHER MARK ET COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002, THEREFORE, PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF' DELAY WAS CLAIMED TO BE JUSTIFIED.. THE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO INFL UENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT IS A GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION AND NO PREJ UDICE WOULD BE CAUSED IF REGISTRATION IS GRANTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE DATE. 6.THE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT WAS UNDER A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURA L MARKETING BOARD HAD BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION AFTER CONDONATION OF DELAY VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2008, WHICH BENEFIT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY ENSURE TO THE ASSESSEE-MARKET C OMMITTEE. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THE EXPLANATION PLAUSIBLE AND THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 3 14.3.2005 HELD THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKET ING BOARD ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THEIR AC TIVITIES ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. EVEN THE ASSESSEE RESPONDENT WAS GRANTED REGISTRATI ON UNDER SECTION 12AA WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 AND CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. 7.HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT ONCE ON THE BASIS OF NUMEROUS FACTORS THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONDONED THE DELAY AND HAS DIRECTED REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002 THEN THE DISCRETION EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO INT ERFERENCE MERELY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT IS HOLDING A CONTRARY VIEW OR ANOTHER VI EW IS POSSIBLE. THE PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKET BOARD HAS ALREADY BEEN GRANTED EXEMPTION AND REGISTRATION VIDE ORDER DATED 14.3.2005. MOREOVER, THERE WAS A BONA F IDE BELIEF WITH THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT THAT THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION WOULD E NURE TO IT AS WELL. THE CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT IS UNDISPUTED AS REGISTRATION HAS IN ANY CASE GRANTED W.E.F 1.4.2005. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCL INED TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL BECAUSE NO QUESTION OF LAW MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW WOULD ARISE FOR DETERMINATION OF THIS COURT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 6. A PERUSAL OF THIS DECISION TAKES US TO A CONCLUS ION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CAN GRANT REGISTRATION FROM AN EARLIER DATE BY CONDONIN G THE DELAY IN MAKING OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT FOR CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY AND GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12 A W.E.F. 01.04.2003. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2016. SD/- SD/- [JUSTICE (RETD.)DEV DARSHAN SUD] [J.SUDHAKAR REDDY] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 OCTOBER, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 4