Nashik District Security Guards Board, Nashik V. CIT-1, Nashik

ITA 1379/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 137924514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MODI
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK TILAK; VINAYAK JOSHI
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12AA; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1379/PN/2010 NASHIK DISTRICT SECURITY GUARDS BOARD, 1 ST FLOOR, HOTEL ZANKAR, NEAR GNJMAL BUS STOP, NASHIK 422 001. PAN : AAAJN0532E . APPELLANT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, NASHIK. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. ABHISHEK TILAK & MR. VINAYAK JOSHI DEPARTMENT BY : MR. A. K. MODI DATE OF HEARING : 16-01-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-02-2015 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM BY WAY OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, NASHIK (IN SHORT THE COMMISSIONER) DATED 30.09.2010 DENYING REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12A(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPLICANT BEFORE US IS CONSTITUTED AS PER TH E MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENTS AND WELF ARES) ACT, 1981. THE BASIC OBJECT OF ESTABLISHING THE ASSESSEE BOARD IS TO REGULATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS IN FACTORIES AND ESTABLI SHMENTS IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND FOR MAKING BETTER PROVISIONS FOR TH E TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE. THE OBJECTS OF THE A SSESSEE HAVE NOTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN PARA 2 OF HIS ORDER, AS UNDER :- ITA NO.1379/PN/2010 (I) PROTECT THE CASUAL, UNORGANIZED PVT. GUARDS, F ROM THE EXPLOITATION BY ENSURING FULL AND PROPER PAYMENTS OF WAGES DUE TO T HEM AND PROVIDE SECURITY OF WORK. (II) ENSURE THAT THE GUARDS ARE EMPLOYED PROPERLY. (III) ENSURE BENEFITS TO THE GUARDS IN THE FORM OF PROVIDENT FUND, GRATUITY, BONUS, COMPENSATION FOR INJURY, MEDICAL BENEFITS, E TC. (IV) ENSURE WELFARE AND SAFETY MEASURES SUCH AS HOU SING FOR THE GUARDS, PROVIDING SCHOLARSHIPS TO THE WARDS OF THE GUARDS, PROVIDING FULL FLEDGE HOSPITALIZATION FACILITY, MATERNITY BENEFITS AND FR EE MEDICAL TREATMENT TO THE GUARDS, ETC. 3. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ITS ACTIVITIE S ARE FALLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES CHARITABLE PURPOSE, AS ITS ACTIVITIES ARE TOWARDS ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE COMMISSIONER HAS DENIED THE REGISTRATION TO THE ASS ESSEE BY WAY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. AS PER THE COMMISSIONER, THE BENEFIT OF THE SCHE ME IS AVAILABLE ONLY THOSE EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS AFTER PAYMENT OF REGI STRATION FEE AS PER CLAUSE 17 OF THE SCHEME. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTEN DED BY THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE BOARD IS NOT OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND THE BENEFIT DOES NOT EXTEND TO THOSE SECURITY GUARDS TO WHOM THE SCHEME DOES NOT APPLY. THE COMMISSIONER HAS ALSO REFERRED TO S ECTION 3(1) OF THE MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ACT, 1981 TO SAY THAT A LEVY IS COLLECTED BY THE BO ARD FROM THE EMPLOYERS AND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE SECURITY GUARDS AFTER DEDUC TING STATUTORY DUES. IT WAS NOTED BY THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE ASSESSEE BOARD C OLLECTS FROM THE REGISTERED EMPLOYERS AMOUNTS OTHER THAN WAGES WHICH IS RETAINED AS A LEVY FOR INCURRING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, ETC.. THE COMMI SSIONER NOTED THAT THE LEVY SO COLLECTED IS KEPT WITH THE ASSESSEE BOARD AND IN VESTED IN PROPER FUNDS. ON THIS BASIS, THE COMMISSIONER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE BOARD WAS PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE EMPLOYERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN BUSIN ESS AND THEREFORE IT WAS HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, WHI CH WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. ITA NO.1379/PN/2010 01.04.2009. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD BY THE COMMISS IONER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION U/S 12A(1)(A) OF T HE ACT. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT A SIMILAR BOARD CONSTIT UTED UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT A ND WELFARE) ACT, 1981 FOR BRIHAN MUMBAI AND THANE DISTRICT WAS GRANTED RE GISTRATION BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.2080/MUM/2008 DATED 30.04.2010 ON AN APPEAL FILED AFTER REJECTION OF REGISTRATION BY THE COMMISSIONER . THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE SCHEME DID NOT EXTEND TO ALL THE SECURITY GUARDS HA S BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SECURIT Y GUARDS BOARD FOR BRIHAN MUMBAI AND THANE (SUPRA). 6. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE FIND THAT THE MUMBAI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.04.2010 (SUPRA) HAS MADE THE FOLLOWI NG DISCUSSION :- 7. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE BASIC OBJECTION OF THE I D. DIRECTOR IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ENGAGED IN OBJECT OF 'GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED VARIOUS WELFARE MEASUR ES FOR REGISTERED SECURITY GUARDS ONLY. THIS, ACCORDING TO THE ID. DIRECTOR, AMOUNTS TO PURSUING OBJECTS WHICH ARE FOR A PARTICULAR SECTION OF SOCIE TY. THERE IS A FALLACY IN THIS APPROACH INASMUCH AS WHAT THE ID. DIRECTOR OUGHT TO EXAMINE AT THE STAGE OF GRANTING REGISTRATION IS CONFINED TO GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES AND OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. ONCE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTIVE S OF THE APPLICANT TRUST ARE FOR GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, THE REGISTRATION CANNOT BE DECLINED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE OBJECTS ARE BEING PURSUED MAY INVITE DISQUALIFICATION FROM EXEMPTION. AS EVIDENT FROM THE PREAMBLE OF TH E MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFA RE) ACT, 1981, UNDER WHICH THE APPLICANT BOARD IS SET-UP, THE OBJECTS OF THE BOARD ARE CLEARLY OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE SAID PREAMBLE, INTER-A LIA, PROVIDES AS FOLLOW:- AN ACT FOR REGULATING THE EMPLOYMENT OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS EMPLOYED IN FACTORIES AND ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND FOR MAKING BETTER PROVISIONS FOR THEIR TERMS AN D CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE, THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT O F A BOARD THEREFOR AND FOR MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. WHEREAS BOTH HOUSES OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE WERE N OT IN SESSION; AND WHEREAS, THE GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA WA S SATISFIED THAT CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED WHICH RENDERED IT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO TAKE ITA NO.1379/PN/2010 IMMEDIATE ACTION TO MAKE A LAW FOR REGULATING THE E MPLOYMENT OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS EMPLOYED IN FACTORIES AND E STABLISHMENT IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND FOR MAKING BETTER PROVISIO NS FOR THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE, THROUGH T HE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOARD THEREFORE, AND FOR MATTERS, CONNECTED TH EREWITH, AND, THEREFORE, PROMULGATED THE MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECU RITY GUARDS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ORDINANCE, 1 981 (MAH. ORD. V OF 1981) ON THE 29 TH JUNE 1981; AND WHEREAS IT IS EXPEDIENT TO REPLACE THE SAID ORD INANCE BY AN ACT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE; IT IS HEREBY ENACTED IN THE THIRTY SECOND YEAR OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AS FOLLOWS-: 8. A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE EXTRACTS FROM THE L EGISLATION WOULD SHOW THAT OBJECTIVE OF SETTING UP THE TRUST IS OVER ALL WELFARE OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS WHICH HAS BEEN AN UNORGANISED SECTOR. CLEAR LY, THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMEN TS NEED NOT BE COVERED BY THIS SPECIAL LEGISLATION BECAUSE, AS EMPLOYEES O F RESPECTIVE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER ESTABLISHMENT, THEIR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS ARE TAKEN CARE OF. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THOSE SECURITY GUARDS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF BENEFITS BY THE BOARD, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BOARD IS ONLY FOR A PARTICULAR SECTION OF GENERAL PUBLIC. LD. DIRECTOR HAS BEEN SWAYED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE NOT REALLY RELEVANT. 9. THE ASSESSEE BOARD IS A GOVERNMENT RUN ORGANIZAT ION AND IT IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE REVENUE, AND RIGHTLY SO, T HAT ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE. ONCE ACTIVITIES ARE GENU INE AND OBJECTS ARE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AS IS THE SITUATION ON THE F ACTS OF THIS CASE, REGISTRATION CANNOT BE DECLINED. AS FOR THE INELIGIBILITY OF EXE MPTION OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE POINTS RAISED BY THE ID. DIRECTOR THAT ASPECT O F THE MATERIALS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF AS SESSMENT. AS HELD BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AGARWAL MITRA MAND AL TRUST VS DIT, 109 (MUM TRIB) TTJ 129, AN OBJECT BENEFICIAL TO THE SEC TION OF PUBLIC IS AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND TO SERVE A CHARITABLE PU RPOSE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE OBJECT SHOULD BE TO BENEFIT WHOLE OF THE MANKIN D, OR ALL PERSONS IN A COUNTRY OR STATE. THIS CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS FURTHE R HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 12AA, THE POWERS OF THE DIT ARE LIMITED TO MAKE ENQ UIRIES WITH A VIEW TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES AND OBJECTIVES OF TRUST. ON BOTH OF THESE COUNTS, ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT FAIL. 7. AS PER THE TRIBUNAL, MERELY BECAUSE A CATEGORY O F SECURITY GUARDS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE BENEFIT OF ASSESSEE BOARD, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BOARD IS CONSTITUTED FOR A PARTICULAR SECT ION OF GENERAL PUBLIC. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE BOARD IS A GOVERNMENT RUN ORGANIZATION AND ITS ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO RE FERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AGARWAL MITRA MAND AL TRUST (SUPRA) TO SAY THAT IN CASE OF AN ORGANIZATION CARRYING ON OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE OBJECT SHOULD BE TO BENEFIT WHOLE OF THE MANKIND OR ALL PERSONS IN A COUNTRY OR STATE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AFORESAID ITA NO.1379/PN/2010 DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, CLEAR LY COVERS THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN THE PRESENT CASE. 8. FURTHER, THE COMMISSIONER HAS REFERRED TO THE FI RST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FIN ANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.R.E.F. 01.04.2009. IN TERMS OF THE SAID PROVISO WHERE THE OBJECT IS OF ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, IT SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE IF IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITIES IN THE N ATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE I N RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION OR RETENTION OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRO VISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, IT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT BY THE COMMISSIONE R THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE BOARD IS TO COLLECT A LEVY FROM THE COMPANIES/ESTAB LISHMENTS REGISTERED WITH IT, THEREFORE, ITS ACTIVITIES CAN NO LONGER BE TAKEN AS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID OBJECTION AND F IND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE BOARD HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN ITS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ACT, 1981 THAT THE SAID LEGISLATION IS INTENDED TO REGULATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS EMPLOYED IN FACTORIES AND E STABLISHMENTS IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA FOR MAKING BETTER PROVISIONS IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE THROUGH THE ESTABLISHM ENT OF THE BOARDS. THE APPLICANT BOARD BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO THE NAS HIK DISTRICT IN MAHARASHTRA. THE MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ACT, 1981 FURTHER PRESCRIBES THAT THE STAT E GOVERNMENT BY MEANS OF A SCHEME PROVIDE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF THE EMPLOY ERS AND SECURITY GUARDS. THE SAID STATUE ALSO PROVIDES FOR DECIDING THE RATE OF SERVICES, PAYMENT, ITA NO.1379/PN/2010 OVERTIME PAYMENT, LEAVE WITH WAGES, GRATUITY, ETC.. THE STATUTE ALSO PROVIDES FOR DECIDING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SHOULD BE REGIST ERED PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER ARE TO REMIT THE WAGES PAYABLE TO THE REGISTERED SECURI TY GUARDS. THE STATUTE ALSO PROVIDES FOR CONSTITUTION OF ANY FUND OR FUNDS INCL UDING, PROVIDENT FUND FOR THE SECURITY GUARDS. THE STATUTE ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE SCHEME BY WHICH THE COST OF OPERATING THE SCHEME IS TO BE DEFRAYED. THE GOVERN MENT OF MAHARASHTRA IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO PROVIDE FOR CONSTITUTING THE AUTH ORITY WHO SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHEME. THE STATUTE ALSO PROVIDES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARDS, WHO ARE UNDER THE SUPERINT ENDENCE AND CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. IN-FACT, THE STATUT E ALSO PROVIDES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROPERTY, FUNDS AND ASSETS OF THE BOAR D ARE TO BE HELD AND APPLIED SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AND FOR THE PURPO SES OF THE SCHEME FORMULATED UNDER THE SAID STATUTE. WE ARE ENUMERAT ING THE AFORESAID CLAUSES OF THE MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS (REGULAT ION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ACT, 1981 ONLY TO POINT OUT THAT THE LEGIS LATURE HAS ENACTED THE AFORESAID STATUTE NOT WITH THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT OF ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVIC ES IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. OSTENSIBLY, THE SAID OBJECTI VES ARE FOR REGULATING THE EMPLOYMENT OF PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS EMPLOYED IN F ACTORIES AND ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND FOR MAKING BETTER PROVISION FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND WELFAR E. CLEARLY, IT IS A WELFARE MEASURE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND IN OUR VIEW, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FALLING FOUL OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, AS CONTENDED BY THE COMMISSIONER. WE ARE UNAB LE TO AFFIRM THE AFORESAID STAND OF THE COMMISSIONER. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR TO THE MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ACT, 1981, THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ALSO E NACTED THE MAHARASHTRA ITA NO.1379/PN/2010 MATHADI, HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ACT, 1969 UNDER WHICH AMRAVATI MATHADI AND UNPROTECTED LABOUR BOARD, AMRAVATI WAS CONSTITUTED. THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE TWO STATUES ENACTED BY THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ARE SIMILAR, AS ONE OF THEM DEALS WITH THE PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS EMPLOYED IN FACTORIES AND ESTABLISHMENT IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER DEALS WITH UN PROTECTED MANUAL WORKERS EMPLOYED IN CERTAIN EMPLOYMENTS IN THE STATE OF MAH ARASHTRA. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THE STATUES ARE PARI-MATERIA. THE LD . REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT AMRAVATI MATHADI AND UNPROTECTED LABOUR BOARD, AMRAVATI CONSTITUTED BY GOVERNMENT OF MAHRASHTRA U/S 6 OF THE MAHARASHTRA M ATHADI, HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ACT, 1969 WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX-III, NAGPUR U/S 12AA OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.2012. IT HA S ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE AKOLA-WASHIM-BULDHANA DISTRICT MATHADI AND UNPROTECTED LABOUR BOARD CONSTITUTED U/S 6 OF THE MAHARASHTRA MATHADI , HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE) ACT, 1969 WAS ALSO GRANTED THE REGISTRATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- I, NAGPUR VIDE ORDER DATED 05.09.2012, COPIES OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED O N RECORD. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT IN SIMILAR SITUATION THE IMPUGNED PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 11. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE OBJECTIONS RAISE D BY THE COMMISSIONER ARE NOT GERMANE TO REJECT THE ASSESSEES PLEA FOR R EGISTRATION U/S 12A(1)(A) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND H AVING REGARD TO THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HEREBY S ET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECT HIM TO ALLOW R EGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12A(1)(A) OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATIO N MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM ON 31.03.2010. ITA NO.1379/PN/2010 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT-I, NASHIK; 4) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 5) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE