M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL , LUDHIANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

ITA 139/ASR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5378 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Maximum Marginal Rate; Retrospective amendment; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 147; 12; 11; 143(3); 80G; 12A; 12AA; 143(1); 201; 264; 48; 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018& 2020 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2014-15 TO 2016-17) LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, DR. HANEMAN CHOWK, KITCHLU NAGAR, LUDHIANA [PAN:AAATL1645C] (ASSESSEE) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV. REVENUE BY SH. S. M. SURENDRANATH, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 16.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.09.2021 ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: THESE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-4,LUDHIANA DATED 26.04.2018, 28 .09.2018 & 12.02.2020 FOR A.YS. 2014-15 TO 2016-17. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IN ITA NO. 383/ASR/2018 I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 2 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-4, LUDHIANAHASERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND BRING ING TO TAX EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,99,088/- AS PE R INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OFTHEASSESSING OFFICER IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE STATUS OF AOP AND TAXING THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AS PER AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEEHADORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A ON 12.05.1998 AND WHEREIN, THE DOCUMENTS AND CLARIFICATION WERE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE OF HAVING APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U /S 12-A AND WHICH HAVE BEEN IGNORED SUMMARILY BY THE CIT(A). 4. THATTHE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AS PER THEJUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT THAT IF THE CIT DOES NOT PASS AN ORDE R ON THE APPLICATION MADE U/S 12AA WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS , THEN THE SAID EXEMPTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS PER THE JUD GMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF EDUCATIONAL REPORTED IN 382 ITR 06 (SC) AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE EXEMPTION DEEM ED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED. 5. THATTHE TAXING OF EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDIT URE AS MADE BY THECIT(A) AND CONFIRMATION OF STATUS AS AOP IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THATTHE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEALBEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IN ITA NOS. 139 & 125/ASR/2020 1. THAT THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-4, LUDHIANA HASERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND BRING ING TO TAX EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 47,44,901/- AS PE R INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. 2. THATTHE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OFTHEASSESSING OFFICER IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ST ATUS OF AOP AND TAXING THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AS PER AUDITED PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 3 3. THATTHE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEEHADORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A ON 12.05.1998 AND WHEREIN, THE DOCUMENTS AND CLARIFICATION WERE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE OF HAVING APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U /S 12-A AND WHICH HAVE BEEN IGNORED SUMMARILY BY THE CIT(A). 4. THATTHE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AS PER THEJUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT THAT IF THE CIT DOES NOT PASS AN ORDE R ON THE APPLICATION MADE U/S 12AA WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS , THEN THE SAID EXEMPTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS PER THE JUD GMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF EDUCATIONAL REPORTED IN 382 ITR 06 (SC) AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE EXEMPTION DEEM ED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED. 5. THATTHE TAXING OF EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDIT URE AS MADE BY THECIT(A) AND CONFIRMATION OF STATUS AS AOP IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THATNO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAD BEEN GRANTED B Y THE CIT (A) AND ALSOAT TIMES, THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENTED BY SUFFICIENT/REA SONABLE CAUSE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE AO ON SOME DATES. 7. THATTHE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT PRONOUNCED THE ORDER ON MERITS AND THUSDISMISSING THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 8. THATTHE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND T HE GROUNDS OF APPEALBEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. BRIEF FACTS 1. THIS IS A CASE OF CHARITABLE SOCIETY, WHICH IS RUNN ING A HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL SINCE 1998 AND HAD RENDERED AN EXEMPLARY SERVICE, EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF COVID 19 BY DISTRIBUTING FREE MEDICINES. THE SOCIETY HAD BEEN FILING THE RETURNS YEAR AFTER YEAR AND THERE I S AN ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04, WHICH COPY HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 31 TO 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN, THE SAID EXEMPTION OF INCO ME HAD BEEN GRANTED AND, THUS, NO DOUBT HAS BEEN CAST ABOUT THE AIMS AND OBJ ECTS OF THE SOCIETY AND GENUINENESS OF TRUST . THIS IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY AS PER EVIDENCE PLAC ED AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH CERTIFICATE IS DATED 20. 07.1998. COPY OF THE TRUST I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 4 DEED AND RULES AND REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED I N THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 2 TO 12. 2. THE SAID SOCIETY HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR RE GISTRATION U/S 12A ON THE PRESCRIBED FORM 10A ON 12.05.1998 AS PER COPY PLACE D AT PAGE 13 AND ENCLOSED ALL THE DOCUMENTS THEREIN AND THERE HAVE BEEN CERTA IN CORRESPONDENCE, WITH THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX , PLACED AT PAGES 16 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH PROVES BEYO ND ANY IOTA OF DOUBT THAT ALL SUCH DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE O F REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND CLARIFICATION WAS ALSO MADE AS DESIRED. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3), THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT TRACE THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A, WHICH HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND, TH EREFORE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE STATUS AS AOP AND WITHOUT D OUBTING THE AIMS AND OBJECTS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SOCIETY, THE EXCESS OF INCOM E OVER EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PER PAGE 24 O F THE PAPER BOOK, AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,99,088/- WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX, MEANING TH EREBY THAT NO ADVERSE VIEW WAS TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS/AIMS AND O BJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. 4. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED TO THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) A ND BEFORE THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), THE ASSESSEE COULD LOCATE THE CORRESPONDENCE TO THE FACT THAT IT HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND PLACED THE EVIDENCES BEFOR E HER, WHICH HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED FROM PAGES 13 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT THAT THERE HAS BEEN AMENDMENT TO SEC TION 12AA AND AS PER CLAUSE (2) OF SECTION 12AA, WHICH HAVE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 21, WHERE BY WAY OF CLAUSE (IA) READ WITH CLAUSE (2) W.E.F. 1.6 .1999, IT HAD STATED THAT ALL THE APPLICATIONS U/S 12A, WHICH HAVE BEEN PENDING BEFOR E THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO PCIT, WHO SHALL PROCEED W ITH SUCH APPLICATION AND BY WAY OF CLAUSE (2), IT HAD BEEN M ENTIONED THAT THE ORDER GRANTING OR REFUSING REGISTRATION SHALL BE PASSED B EFORE THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS. I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 5 5. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS, THAT IF THE TWIN OBJECTS OF GENUINENESS OF TRUST AND ACTIVITIES ARE FOUND IN OR DER, THEN THE REGISTRATION SHOULD BE GRANTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REM AND REPORT REPRODUCED AT PAGE 4 & 5 OF THE ORDER HAS TRIED TO FIND FAULT IN THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT COMPLETE DOCUMENTS HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTED AND SUCH FACT HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INTERPRETED, BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS:- A). AFTER THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION ON FORM NO. 10 ,, THERE IS A LETTER, DATED 21.05.1998 SIGNED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICE R AT PAGE 14, ASKING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS. B). WE REPLIED TO THAT AND ENCLOSED THE DOCUMENTS T HEREIN, AS PER PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK VIDE LETTER, DATED 08.06.1998. C). THERE IS A LETTER, DATED 17.07.1998 OF THE ITO, PLACED AT PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ASKING FOR SOME MORE INFORMATION. D). THERE IS A REPLY TO THAT, WHICH IS PLACED AT PA GE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK, DATED 23.07.1998 AND THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AS DES IRED HAD BEEN FILED. E). THEN AGAIN THERE IS ANOTHER LETTER, DATED 12.08 .1998 AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, CONFIRMING THAT THE INFORMATION HAD ALR EADY BEEN FILED, WHICH WERE AGAIN REITERATED AS PER LETTER, DATED 15.09.19 98 AT PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND, THOUGH, THE LETTER WAS ADDRESSED TO THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), BUT COPIES WERE ENDORSED TO CONCERNED DCIT AND INCOME TAX OFFICER. 6. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT T O THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED THAT THE LETTER, DATED 12.08.1998 WAS ONL Y A REQUEST FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION, WHICH IS PATENTLY WRONG AS STATED ABO VE. FURTHER, NO DOUBT HAS BEEN I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 6 RAISED EITHER BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF SUCH DOCUMENTS. FINDING OF THE CIT(A) 7. THE CIT HAS ALSO MENTIONED THE SAME FACTS AND WR ONGLY INTERPRETED THAT INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED IN PARA 5.3 OF THE O RDER, WHICH IS PROVED FROM THE REPLY AT PAGE 17, 18 & 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 8. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS DUTY BOUND TO EITHER REGISTERED THE ASSESSEE U/S 2A OR REFUSE THE REGISTRATION, BUT SIN CE NO ORDER U/S 12 APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PASSED AND THERE IS MENTION OF WORD SHAL L AND THE REGISTRATION SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED AUTOMATICALLY , ON THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE APEX CO URT, HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT AND THE JURISDICTIONAL, AMRITSAR BENCH, COPY OF THE JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED AT FOLLOWING PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK : - PAGE 52 THE JUDGEMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF EDN, ALLAHABAD, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UN DER:- SECTION 12A, READ WITH SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961- CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST- REGISTRATION O F (DEEMED REGISTRATION)- WHETHER WHERE ASSESSEE- SOCIETY FILE D AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12 A FOR GRANT OF REGISTR ATION ON 24.02.2003 AND SAME WAS NOT RESPONDED TO WITHIN SIX MONTHS, REGISTRATION OF APPLICATION WAS TO BE DEEME D TO HAVE TAKEN EFFECT FROM 24.08.20030 HELD, YES. PAGE 53 TO 56. THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT, COCHIN VS TBI EDUCATION TRUST, HAS TAKEN THE SAME VIEW. PAGE 57- 70. THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE IT AT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS HAVE FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT ABOUT THE DEEMED REGISTRATION, WHICH COPY HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 57 TO 70 I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 7 OF PAPER BOOK. RELEVANT PAGES ARE 69 TO 70, IN WHIC H, THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN. PAGE 71-81 THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE ITAT IN A JUDGMENT PLACED AT PAGES 71- 81, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE S IDES HAD CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AT LENGTH AND THE FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN AT PAGE 79 AND 80 IN PARA 14 OF THE JUDGMENT, WHERE IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. SIMILAR IS THE JUDGMENT PLACED AT PAGES 82 TO 83. PAGE 37-45. THERE IS EVEN JUDGMENT OF RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT ON THE SAME ISSUE, WHICH COPY IS PLACED AT PAGES 37 TO 45 AND T HE RELEVANT FINDING IS AT PAGES 44 TO 45, IN WHICH, FOLLOWING T HE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT AND ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL , IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF NO ORDERS ARE PASSED WITHIN SIX MONTHS , AS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT, GRANTING OR REFUSING THE REGISTRATION, IT SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED . 9. THE 2 ND ARGUMENT OF LD. CIT (A) THAT THE REGISTRATION WAS NOT GRANTED SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE CIT (EXEMPTION). IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT AFTER THE CASE WAS SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE ITAT TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) . THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) HAD GRANTED THE REGISTRATION AS PER ORDER PLACED AT PAG ES 33 TO 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, BOTH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE CIT ARE MISPLA CED. 10 WE ALSO RELY UPON THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTI ONAL BENCH OF THE ITAT, FOLLOWING EARLIER JUDGMENT OF AMRITSAR BENCH, IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT IF THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR ANY OF THE YEAR, THEN IT IS DEEMED TO BE REGISTERED FOR ANY OTHER YEAR, FOR WHICH, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING AT ANY APPELLATE STAGE . THIS FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE JUDGMENT OF AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF TILLA BABA FARID RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY, COPY OF THE JUDG MENT PLACED AT PAGES 46 TO 51 OF THE PAPER AND THE RELEVANT FINDING IS AT PAGE 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK. I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 8 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS, THE REGISTRATI ON U/S 12A MAY, PLEASE, BE GRANTED AND OBLIGE. 12. ALTERNATIVELY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE STATUS HAS BEEN TAKEN AS AOP AND THE ENTIRE SURPLUS ALONGWITH CORPUS DONATIONS HAVE BEEN TAXED. IT IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH THAT IF THE INCOME HAS BEEN CHARGED TO TAX AS PER T HE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12, THEN THE A SSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AS PER COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S PATIALA URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, IN ITA NO. 1408/CHD/2018 AND IN ITA NO. 55/CHD/2018. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IS BEI NG FILED HEREWITH AND RELEVANT FINDING IS IN PARA 18:- PARA 18: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD, THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 OF THE ACT , THE OTHER PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO EXEMPT ENTITY WILL ALSO NO T APPLY TO IT. INOTHER WORDS, WE HOLD THAT THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE AC T WILL BE APPLICABLE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED TO SET OFF OF LOSSES AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE NORMAL PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT. 13. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE: 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHO HAD DECIDED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE EXPARTE. THOUG H, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED EXPARTE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AS PER ASSESS MENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2014-15 AND 2015-16. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGIST ERED CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A ON 12.05.1998 AND LATERON, THE THERE HAS BEEN CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSE SSEE, WHEREIN CERTAIN DETAILS WERE FILED AND NO DOUBT HAS BEEN RA ISED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING THE CHARITABLE ACTIVI TY AND THE ONLY ISSUE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THAT SINCE THE SOCIETY HAD NOT BEEN REGISTERED U/S I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 9 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND, THEREFORE, SURPLUS A S PER INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 47,44,901 /-. 2. THERE IS NO OTHER ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE, BEC AUSE THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND R EGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITY AND AIMS AND OBJECTS , THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND MEANING THEREBY, THAT IF T HERE WOULD HAVE BEEN REGISTRATION U/S 12A, THEN THE SURPLUS AS PER PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE AT ALL. 3. WE HAVE ALREADY FILED APPEAL FOR ASSTT. YEAR 201 4-15, WHERE SIMILAR ISSUE IS THERE AND AS PER THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF EDN., ALLAHABAD AS REPORTED IN [20 16] 67 TAXMANN.COM 264 (SC), IN WHICH, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- SECTION 12A, READ WITH SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961- CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST- REGISTRATION OF (DEE MED REGISTRATION)- WHETHER WHERE ASSESSEE- SOCIETY FILED AN APPLICATIO N UNDER SECTION 12 A FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION ON 24.02.2003 AND SAME WAS NOT RESPONDED TO WITHIN SIX MONTHS, REGISTRATION OF APPLICATION W AS TO BE DEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN EFFECT FROM 24.08.20030 HELD, YES. 4. EVEN, THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, COCHIN VS TBI EDUCATION TRUST AS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF APEX CO URT AND HAS HELD AS UNDER:- IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AND REJECT THE APP EAL. THE REGISTRATION HOWEVER IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE DA TE OF EXPIRY OF THE SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION. THERE SHAL L BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 10 5. WHILE GIVING THIS JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS RELIED UPON THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT. 6. THE SAME IS THE JUDGMENT OF BANGALORE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS ALSO TAKEN THE SAME VIEW. 7. THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH WAS ALSO CEASED WITH TH E SAME ISSUE AND HAD FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT. 8. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE CASE OF LAKH A SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST BY THE AMRITSAR TRIBUNAL. RELIANCE IS ALSO BE ING PLACED EARLIER JUDGMENT OF AMRITSAR BENCH, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE R EGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR ANY OF THE YEAR, THEN IT IS DEEMED TO BE REGIS TERED FOR ANY OTHER YEAR, FOR WHICH, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING AT ANY APPELLATE STAGE . THIS FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE JUDGMENT OF AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF TILLA BABA FARID RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY, COPY OF THE JUDG MENT PLACED AT PAGES 46 TO 51 OF THE PAPER AND THE RELEVANT FINDING IS AT P AGE 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SAID SUBMISSIONS, BRINGING TO TAX THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE IS BAD IN LAW. 10. ALTERNATIVELY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE STATUS HAS BEEN TAKEN AS AOP AND THE ENTIRE SURPLUS ALONGWITH CORPUS DONATIONS H AVE BEEN TAXED. IT IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH THAT IF THE INCOME HAS BEEN CHAR GED TO TAX AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IGNORING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AS PER COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED AS PER THE JUDGMEN T OF CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S PATIALA URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, IN ITA NO. 1408/CHD/2018 AND IN ITA NO. 55/CHD/2018. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IS BEING FILED HEREWITH. COPY OF THE J UDGMENT IS BEING FILED HEREWITH AND RELEVANT FINDING IS IN PARA 18:- I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 11 PARA 18: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD, THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT BEING ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 OF THE ACT, THE OTHER PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO EXEMPT ENTITY WILL ALSO NOT APPLY TO IT. INOTHER WORDS, WE HOLD THAT THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLICABLE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET O FF OF LOSSES AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . 12. IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE:- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHO HAD DECIDED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE EXPARTE. THOUGH, T HE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED EXPARTE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AS PER ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. FOR AS STT. YEAR 2014-15 AND 2015-16. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED CHAR ITABLE SOCIETY AND HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A ON 12.05.1998 AND LATERON, THE THERE HAS BEEN CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE, WHEREIN CERTAIN DETAILS WERE FILED AND NO DOUBT HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPA RTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AND THE ONLY ISSUE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THAT SINCE THE SOCIETY HAD NOT BEEN REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND, THEREFORE, SURPLUS AS PER INCOME AND EXPENDITU RE ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 39,21,913/- AND CORPUS DONATION OF RS. 3,19,050/- H AS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX. 2. THERE IS NO OTHER ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE, BEC AUSE THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITY AND AIMS AND OBJECTS , THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFF ICER AND MEANING THEREBY, THAT IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN REGI STRATION U/S 12A, THEN THE SURPLUS AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE AT ALL. THE REMAINING CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COMMON AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14 13. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEEMED REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT AS THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS FAILED TO COURT I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 12 THE REGISTRATION WITHIN A STATUTORY. SIX MONTHS FRO M THE DATE OF APPLICATION. IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR THAT THAT ASSUMING THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEN IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION ON 12.11.2020 ON THE APPLICATION FILLED ON 21.8.2017 HOWEVER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR THERETO THE AS SESSEE HAD ALL ALONG BEEN GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRAT ION BY FROM 1998, EXCEPT FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATIONS. ON THE BASIS OF THE FRESHLY GRANTED REGISTRATION BY THE CIT EXEMPTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXE MPTION BE GRANTED FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION OR IN ANY CASE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013 14, AS THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES CONTINUES TO BE THE SAME AND E VEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE NATURE OF ACTIVITI ES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CHARITABLE HOWEVER, ON THE PRETEXT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAV E NOT GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF THE REGISTRATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE INSER TION OF THE PROVISO TO THE SECTION 12 AA, THE REGISTRATION CAN BE GRANTED RETROSPECTIV ELY BY THE TRIBUNAL. 14. PER CONTRA DR FOR THE REVENUE HAD VEHEMENTLY R ELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE CIT (A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEEMING REGIST RATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH TH E REQUIREMENT AS INDICATED IN THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS OCCASION S PRIOR TO TRANSFERRING THE PENDING APPLICATION TO THE CIT EXEMPTION. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE EVER RAISED NO SUCH PLEA EITHER B EFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE FORM OF GROUNDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JUDGMENTS I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 13 CITED AT BAR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BY BOTH T HE PARTIES.IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE C OMMUNICATION DATED 17.07.1998 WHEREBY THE ITO HAS ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION. THE SAID INFORMATION W AS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 23.07.1998 (PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK).THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR AT TENTION TO RETURN TO REMAND TO THE ITO FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION VIDE LETTER DATED 15.09.1998. THE ITO VIDE LETTER DATED 05.07.1999 H AD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE TRUST DEED REGISTERED AND S ENT THE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ITO FOR TH E PURPOSES OF FACILITATING THE REGISTRATION. IT IS THE CASE THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED A COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED TO THE ITO. 16. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE CERTIFICATE OF R EGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.1998 BEARING NO. 45 TO 49 (PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK). ON THE BASIS OF T HE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED ALL THE R EQUISITE APPLICATIONS AND NOTHING WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE AS AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 14 17. FURTHER, DURING THE ARGUMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED THAT BY THE AMENDMENT, W.E.F., 01.06.1999, CLAUSE 2 IN S ECTION 12AA WAS INSERTED WITH THE FOLLOWING EFFECT PAGE 21 IS AS UN DER: 2. EVERY ORDER GRANTING OR REFUSING REGISTRATION U NDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION (1) SHALL BE PASSED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SI X MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED UNDER C LAUSE (A) [OR CLAUSE (AA) [OR CLAUSE (AB)] OF SUB-SECTION (1)] OF SECTION 12A.] 18. BASED ON THE ABOVE SAID AMENDMENT, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO GRANT THE R EGISTRATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE LAW AS APPLICABLE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED THE REGISTRAT ION BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY IN CASE, THE REGISTRATION AP PLICATION WAS NOT DECIDED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION. 19. THE ISSUE OF DEEM REGISTRATION IN THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION IS NOT ADJUDICATED WITHIN 6 MONTHS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED TIME AND AGAIN BY THE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURT AND ALSO BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF SOCIETY FOR PROMN. OF EDUCATION, ALLAHABAD AT PAGE 52 OF THE PAPER I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 15 BOOK VIDE DECISION REPORTED AS 67 TAXMANN.COM 264 ( SC) HAD HELD AS UNDER: 3. THE SHORT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DEEMED RE GISTRATION OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ONCE AN APPLICAT ION IS MADE UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AND IN CASE THE SAME IS NOT RESPONDED TO WITHIN SIX MONTHS, IT WOULD BE TAKEN T HAT THE APPLICATION IS REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION. 4. THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL APPEARI NG FOR THE APPELLANTS, HAS RAISED AN APPREHENSION THAT IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT, SINCE THE DATE OF APPLICATION WAS OF 24 .02.2003, AT THE WORST, THE SAME WOULD OPERATE ONLY AFTER SIX MO NTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. 5. WE SEE NO BASIS FOR SUCH AN APPREHENSION SINCE T HAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL SENSE IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT COULD BE UNDERSTOOD. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DISABUSE ANY APP REHENSION, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE REGISTRATION OF THE APPLI CATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF T HE RESPONDENT SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM 24.08.2003. 20. SIMILARLY HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE MATT ER OF TBI EDUCATION TRUST 96 TAXMANN.COM 356 (KERALA) AS DECI DED BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IS HELD AS UNDER: 4. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY O F IMPARTING EDUCATION SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT, IT MOVED TWO APPLICATIONS, ONE ON 08 -10-1998 SEEKING RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT AND OTHER ON 25-05-199 9 SEEKING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-1998. HOWEVER, W HILE GRANTING RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 80G ON 18-07-2002, THE CIT DID NOT TA KE ANY ACTION ON APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT . THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN A LETTER TO CIT VIDE LETTER DATED 21-02-200 2 FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A AND RECOGNITION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SEC TION 80G BUT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE CIT. LATER ON THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A NEW APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A ON 26-05-2012 BUT THIS APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26-12-2012 ON SOLE GROUND THAT THE UNIVERSITY HAD FAILED TO INCORPORATE CERTAIN CLAUSES IN THE VTU AC T. THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 16 SAID ORDER OF THE CIT WAS ALSO DISMISSED FOR THE SA ME REASON. THE AO HAS ALSO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE AC T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10, 2004-05 TO 2007-08 AND 2010-11 TO 2013-14. DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN FI LED THE THIRD APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A ON 5-11-2014 ALONG W ITH THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE EXECUTE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY APPROVING CER TAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE VTU ACT, AS DESIRED BY THE CIT. HOWEVER, THE CIT INSIST ED ON PRODUCTION OF THE AMENDMENTS ENACTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE. ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS CONSTRAINED HIM TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION ON 27-0 5-2015 WITH A LIBERTY TO FILE A FRESH APPLICATION. THE AMENDMENT CAME TO BE EVENTUA LLY ENACTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON 13-08-2015 AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER ON 25-08-2015 THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS 4TH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SE CTION 12A OF THE ACT. AFTER THE AMENDMENTS APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY'S EXECUTIVE C OUNCIL, ENACTMENT WAS MADE BY BOTH HOUSES OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE WITH R ETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01- 04-1998 AND HAVING RECEIVED THE HON'BLE GOVERNOR'S ASSENT ON 13-08-2015, THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NOTIFIED THE SAME AS THE VT U (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015 (THE AMENDMENT ACT), VIDE ITS NOTIFICATION DATED 18 -08-2015. AGAIN THE ASSESSEE MADE ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SEC TION 12AA AND THIS APPLICATION WAS DULY ACCOMPANIED BY CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE VTU ACT, THE AMENDMENT ACT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUCH AS (I) LIST OF OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY; (II) A NOTE ON THE UNIVERSITY'S ACTIVITIES; (III) CERTIFICATE OF NON-I NFRINGEMENT OF SECTION 13(L)(C); (IV) RETURNS OF INCOME AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR AYS 2012-13 TO 2014-15; (V) REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION; (VI) D ETAILS OF INVESTMENTS; AND (VII) DETAILS OF CENTRES OF THE UNIVERSITY. THROUGH THIS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE SOUGHT REGISTRATION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01-04-1 998. AFTER MAKING DETAILED VERIFICATION, THE CIT GRANTED THE REGISTRATION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 08-12-2015 W.E.F. 01-04-2016 WITHOUT RECORDING THE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEDING THE UNIVERSITY'S REQUEST FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION WITH RETROSPECTIV E EFFECT FROM 01-04-1998. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL THE RELEVANT EV IDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE OBJECTS OF THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS ACTIVITIES AND TH E CIT WAS SATISFIED WITH THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IT HAS GRANTED THE REGISTRATION FROM PROSPECTIVE DATE I.E. , FROM 01-04-2016 AND NOT FROM RETROSPECTIVE DATE I.E., FROM 01-04-1998 WITHOUT RE CORDING REASONS. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 21. IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMITTEDLY, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PENDING SINCE 1998, AND NO ORDER WAS PASSED AGA INST THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION, HOWEVER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 17 CONTINUES TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS A CHARITABLE ENT ITY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. IN OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION IS PENDI NG BEFORE THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, T HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE REASONS WITHIN REASONABLE TIME FOR NOT ACCORDING TO THE REGISTRATION. 22. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE T ILL DATE, NO ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES EITH ER ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12.05.1998;HOWEVER IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT THE ASSESS EE CONTINUES AND IMPARTS THE EDUCATION IN THE FIELD OF HOMEOPATHIC M EDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND RUNNING GRADUATE, UNDER GRADUATE A ND POST GRADUATE COURSES UNDER THE NAME OF M/S MAHAVIRA HOM EOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, THOUGH THERE IS A LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR N OT PURSUING THE REGISTERED APPLICATION AFTER THE INSERTION OF THE A MENDMENT WHEREBY THE RECORD OF THE REGISTRATION WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ITO TOCIT(E) AND THEREAFTER .HOWEVER THE NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT LEGALIZE THE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER/CIT(E) FOR NOT PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER ON THE APPLICATIO N OF REGISTRATION DATED 12.05.1998. ADMITTEDLY, UNTIL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 18 CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO BE TREATED AS A CHARITABLE ENTITY WITHOUT ANY FORMAL REGISTRATION ORDER BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER REVIEW, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHARITABLE AND IMPARTING EDUCATION WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 23. IN ANY CASE ,THE ASSESSEES REGISTRATION APPLIC ATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED EXPEDITIOUSLY AND MORE PARTICULARLY WI THIN THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AFTER THE INSERTION OF THE AMENDMENT CAPPI NG THE TIME LIMIT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION. THEN THE AUTHORITIES ARE OBLIGED TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS. FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE CIT(E) / ITO TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION, GAVE RISE TO CRYSTALLIZE RI GHT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TREATING THE ASSESSEE, AS DEEMED CHARI TABLE SOCIETY. THE REGISTRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TOHAVE DEEMEDTO HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE MATTER OF SOCIETY FOR PRPMN. OF EDUCATION, A LLAHABAD 67 TAXMANN.COM 264 (SC) (PAGE 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK) IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE REGISTERED U /S 12AA FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 TO 2016-17 AND TILL TH E REGISTRATION IS SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED BY THE CIT(E) VIDE ORDER DATED 12.11.2020. I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 19 24. ANOTHER ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A SECOND APPLICATION FOR GRANT O F REGISTRATION ON 21.08.2017 WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE OR DER DATED 27.02.2018 AGAINST THE SAID REJECTION ORDER; THE AS SESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06 .2020 IN ITA NO. 57/ASR/2018 HAD REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO CIT(E). 25. CONSIDERING THE DIRECTION AND THE MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(E) VIDE ORDER DATED 12.11.2020 HAD GRANTED THE REGISTRATION FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 HOWEVER, AT THE TI ME OF GIVING REGISTRATION, CIT(A) IN CLAUSE 12 HAD MENTIONED AT PAGE 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS AS UNDER: 12. LITIGATION PENDING AT ANY LEVEL BEFORE NAY PRI OR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 WILL NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT BY THIS ORDER. 26. WE MAY FURTHER LIKE TO POINT OUT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS INSERTED TO ACT U/S 12A BY THE EXPLANATI ON, THE REGISTRATION CAN BE GRANTED RETROSPECTIVELY IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE CONTINUE THAT THE SAME ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. RECENTLY IN THE MATTER OF VISHWA MITTERSEKHRI IN ITA NO. 75/ASR/201 6 THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 13.07.2021 RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE JAIPUR, I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 20 TRIBUNAL AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER SHY AM MANDIR COMMITTEE HAS HELD IN PARAGRAPH 28 TO 29 IS AS UNDE R: 28. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE PURPOSE OF INSE RTION OF THE NEW PROVISO IN THE ACT WAS TO MITIGATE THE HARDSHIP OF THE SOCIETY /TRUST LIKE ASSESSEE WHO WERE INTO CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, AND ON ACCOUNT OF SOME TECHNICAL REASONS, THE REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN ACCORDED OR SOUGHT IN TIME. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AN D WAS HAVING THE REQUISITE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23) FOR THE YEA R PRIOR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED THE REGI STRATION UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 25.9.2009. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER HAVING REGI STRATION UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT NOR WAS HAVING APPROVAL UNDER SECTI ON 10 (23) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED T O BE CHARITABLE AND THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH WAS REGISTERED ON 25.9.2009, HOWEV ER THE ASSESSEE, WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11, 12 AND 1 3 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 UNDER CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 12 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FOR THE ABOVE SAID PURPOSES WE MAY RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORD INATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF SHYAM MANDIR COMMITTEE, JAIPUR V. ACIT, S IKAR (SUPRA) WHEREIN ONE OF THE MEMBER(NAMELY JUDICIAL MEMBER) W AS A PARTY, IN THE SAID DECISION IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 21 5.1. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONA L GROUND, IT IS NECESSARY TO REPRODUCE SECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT, W HICH PROVIDES AS UNDER:- 12A. CONDITIONS FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTIONS 11 & 12. (1) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND SECTION 12 SHALL NOT APPLY IN REL ATION TO THE INCOME OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNLESS THE FOLLOWING CONDI TIONS ARE FULFILLED, NAMELY :- (A) THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME H AS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST OR INSTIT UTION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER TO THE COMMISSION ER BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 1973, OR BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE ESTABLISHM ENT OF THE INSTITUTION, WHICHEVER IS LATER AND SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA. PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN APPLICATION FO R REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TH E PERIOD AFORESAID, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN REL ATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION, - (I) FROM THE DATE OF T HE CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTION IF THE COMMISS IONER IS, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, SATISFIED THAT THE PERSO N IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME WAS PREVENTED FROM MAKING THE APPLICATION BE FORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID FOR SUFFICIENT REASONS; (II) F ROM THE 1 ST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE, IF THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT SO SATISFIED. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY APPLICATION MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007. (AA) THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOM E HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST OR INSTIT UTION ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007 IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND MANNER TO THE COMMISSIONER AND SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS REGIS TERED UNDER SECTION 12AA. (B) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE TRUST OR IN STITUTION AS COMPUTED UNDER THIS ACT WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 11 AND SECTION 12 EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ACCOUNTS OF TH E TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR THAT YEAR HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY AN ACCOUNTANT AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 AN D THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME FURNISHES ALONG WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT I N THE PRESCRIBED FORM DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT AND SET TING FORTH SUCH PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. (2) WHERE AN APPL ICATION HAS BEEN MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS MADE. THE FINANCE ACT NO. 2 OF 2014 HAS INSERTED THE PROV ISO TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12A WITH EFFECT FROM 1.10.2014. WE A RE REPRODUCING HEREIN BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12A FIRST P ROVISO, SECOND PROVISO AND THIRD PROVISO FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY. [PROVIDE D THAT WHERE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12AA, THEN, I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 22 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST OF AN Y ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS ON THE DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION AND THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION REMAIN THE SAME FOR SUCH PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR ANY ASSESS MENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY FOR NON REGISTRA TION OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IN CASE OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH WAS REFUSED REGISTRATION OR THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO IT WAS CANCELLED AT ANY TIME UNDER SECTI ON 12AA.] A BARE READING OF THE PROVISO CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT IF AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE AO AND THE OBJECT AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUS T REMAIN THE SAME FOR SUCH PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEN THE BENEFIT O F REGISTRATION FOR SECTIONS 11 & 12 ARE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE TR UST ON THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED APP LICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION 16.03.2009 AND THE REGISTRATION WAS DI RECTED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2 008. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 13.3.2 010 .THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 26.12.2011 UNDER SEC TION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT AND. THUS WHEN THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 28.01.2010 THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT Y EARS I.E. 2007-08. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE JU DGMENT OF ITAT IN ITA NO. 503 TO 506 & 569/COCH/2014 IN THE MATTER OF SNDP YOGAM VS. THE ADIT (EXEMPTION) WHEREIN IN PARA 7, 7.1 AND 7.2 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER :- 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD AND THE CA SE LAW ON WHICH THE LEARNED AR HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE. THE PRIMARY ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED I N CONFIRMING THE AOS ACTION, FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDER ATION, IN ASSESSING THE ENTIRE INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ALL THE INS TITUTIONS AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS APPRO PRIATE TO REFER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT AND ITS PROV ISO. FOR READY REFERENCE THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: (SECTION 12 A(2) & ITS PROVISO. [(2) WHERE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE ON OR AFTE R THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SH ALL APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO. 651/JP/2013 SHREE SHYAM MANDIR COMMITTEE VS. AC IT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH S UCH APPLICATION IS MADE:] [PROVIDED THAT WHERE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN G RANTED TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12AA, THEN, THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTIONS 11 I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 23 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AF ORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A RE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON THE DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION AND THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION REMAIN THE SAME FOR SUCH PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. PROVIDED FURTHER TH AT NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING TH E AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY FOR NON REGISTRATION OF SUCH T RUST OR INSTITUTION FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRS T AND SECOND PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IN CASE OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH WAS REFUSED REGISTRATION OR THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO IT WAS CANCELLED AT ANY TIME UNDER SECTION 12AA.] WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IN OUR VIEW, THE PROVISO TO SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12A HAS RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION AND HAS BEEN INSE RTED IN THE ACT TO REMOVE THE HARDSHIP OF THE CHARITABLE TRUSTS/INSTIT UTIONS. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE WHEN THE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED ON 05.03.2010 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2008, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR 2007-08 WERE PENDING BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE TREATED AS ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS AND IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATE D AS REGISTERED TRUST UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT. WE FIND NO R EASON TO DISAGREE WITH THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH (S UPRA) WHERE THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRAT ION OF THE TRUST FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 THOUGH THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATIO N WAS GRANTED ON 29.07.2013. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS ALSO REQUIR ED TO BE TREATED AS REGISTERED TRUST FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 DE HORS THE D IRECTION ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO GRANT THE REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2008, IN THE LIGHT OF NEW AMENDMENT REFERRED HEREIN ABOVE AND AL SO IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF COORDINATE BENCH. WE MAY LIKE TO ADD TH AT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2010 HAS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE REGISTRATION FROM 1.4.2008, IN OUR VIEW WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATURE WHICH IS BENEFICIAL IN NATURE, THE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATURE AND THE BENEFIT FLOWING FROM THE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NONE OF THE PARTYS CASE THAT THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE REACHED TO THE FINALITY AND, THERE FORE, IN VIEW OF THE CHANGE IN LAW, THE BENEFICIAL LEGISLATION SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, IN THE MATTER OF H OWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION &ORS. V. GANGES ROPE CO. LTD. &ORS., (2 004) 1 SCC 663 IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN LAW DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL, THE CHANGE I N LAW SHOULD BE I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 24 MADE APPLICABLE AND SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE PENDIN G APPEALS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 AND THERE IS A CHANGE IN LAW WITH EFFECT FR OM 1.10.2014. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE A SSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INSERTION ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXTENDED OR PASSED ON TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING. I N VIEW THEREOF, NOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THE REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147/1 48 OF THE IT ACT. 29. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SAID DISCUSSION WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT, THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 13 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION SHOULD BE ACCORD ED. IN THE RESULT THE 2 ND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOW ED. 27. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED TO THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON THE BASIS OF DEEMING PROVISION ANDALSO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 12A. 28. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWEDGOR ALL THE THREE APPEALS , HOWEVER, FOR COMPUTATION FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS; WE REMAND THE MATTER BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION FOR ALL THE AS SESSMENT YEARS . THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T ETC., BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, SHALL GRANT T HE BENEFIT OF SECTIONS I.T.A NOS. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 25 11 AND 13 TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AN D COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. 29. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/09/2021. SD/- SD/- (DR. M.L. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IALMEMBER DATED 21/09/2021 *GP/SR. P.S.* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER