Shree Surti Modhvanik Building Hitvardhak, Surat V. Income Tax Examption Ward, Surat

ITA 149/SRT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3300 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJAS GANDHI
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 274; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (H EARING IN VIRTUAL COURT) SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK BUILDING HITVARDHAK, 9/ 1890, SHREYANSH BUILDING, GHANTI SHERI, LIMDA CHOWK, SURAT 395003. PAN : AABTS 3386 E VS THE INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT. APPLICANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI TEJAS GANDHI CA REVENUE BY MS ANUPAMA SINGLA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 04.06.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.06.2021 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, SURAT DATED 26.07.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) III, SURAT HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS NOT REGISTERED U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THAT THE TRUST BE CONSIDERED AS REGISTERED U/S.12AA OF THE ACT AND THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE TRUST ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THAT THEIR CLAIM OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.13,13,184/- INCURRED ON THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST BE ALLOWED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, AMPLIFY, WITHDRAW OR VARY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHARITABLE TRUST ALLEGEDLY REGISTERED WITH CHARITY COMMISSIONER, SURAT VIDE REGISTRATION NO. F-4 , SURAT, DATED 16.01.1953. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 03.10.1974 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CONCERNED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,63,045/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, AGAINST THE EXPANSES ON ACCOUNT OF OBJECT OF TRUST. THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COPY OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY DATED 09.03.2016 STATED THAT THE TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT VIDE REGISTRATION NO. CIT- II/8/44/SRT DATED 03.10.1974. THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT WAS DESTROYED IN HEAVY FLOOD IN 2006. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THEY ARE REGULARLY FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMING EXEMPTION AND THE SAME IS ALWAYS GRANTED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.08.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD.AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE, DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES BY TAKING VIEW THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE REGARDING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 3 THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED AND OTHER EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.13,13,184/- INCLUDING 15% ACCUMULATION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT WAS DISALLOWED. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD. THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (SR. DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE-INSTITUTION IS A CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED WITH THE ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, SURAT, SINCE 1953. THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT IN 1974 VIDE REGISTRATION NO. CIT- II/8/44/SRT DATED 03.10.1974. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE LD.AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY AND EXPLAINED THAT REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IS DESTROYED IN HEAVY FLOODS IN 2006 IN SURAT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY FILING RETURN AND ALWAYS TREATED AS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE AC AND GRANTED BENEFITS THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHEREIN THE REFERENCE OF REGISTRATION NO. OF ASSESSEE TRUST IS MENTIONED. THE INCOME OF TRUST IS SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRUST IN ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 4 ACHIEVING ITS OBJECTS. THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WAS NEVER WITHDRAWN BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD.AO INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE, DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE OBJECT OF ASSESSEE-TRUST. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF LD.AO. 4. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005- 06 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT IN ALL ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND COMPUTATION INCOME OF THOSE YEARS ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THE REGISTRATION OF ASSESSEE COULD BE CANCELLED ONLY WHEN THE ACTIVITIES OF ASSESSE ARE NOT GENUINE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR FRESH REGISTRATION, WHICH WAS GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT ON 15.03.2017. THE COPY OF FRESH REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE OBJECTS AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE -TRUST SINCE INCEPTION TILL GRANT OF FRESH REGISTRATION. THE COPIES OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 5 INFORMATION ACT (RTI), REPLY OF CPIO AND THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RTI IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. 5. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT TO AVOID THE GENUINE HARDSHIP BY THE PERSONS LIKE THE ASSESSEE, THE LEGISLATION ADDED THE PROVISO UNDER SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, NO.2 OF 2014, WHICH MAY BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD.AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MAYUR FOUNDATION 274 ITR 562 (GUJARAT), PUNE TRIBUNAL IN MOUNT CARMEL SOCIETY VS. ITO IN ITA NOS.987 TO 989/PUN/2016 DATED 29.03.2019, BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. CENTRE FOR CELLULAR MOLECULAR PLATFORMS (CCMP) IN ITA NO.271/BANG/2018 DATED 28.08.2019, LADY KIKABAI PREMCHAND IYAMBAIL TRUST VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1403/PUN/2019 DATED 21.01.2020 AND KOTA LOINS CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS CIT (ITA NO. 93 /JP/2012 DATED 11.09.2014. 6. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN MAYUR FOUNDATION (SUPRA) HELD THAT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ARE MEANT TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. FURTHER IN ITO VS. CCMP (SUPRA) THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL BY REFERRING THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL, AND THE APPEAL IS CONTINUATION OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 6 THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12A OF INCOME TAX ACT. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID CASE LAWS, THE LD.AR PRAYED THAT THOUGHT HE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN 1974, WAS STILL IN EXISTENCE AS IT WAS NEITHER CANCELLED NOR REVOKED, YET FOR ABUNDANT ACTION, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED FRESH REGISTRATION. SINCE THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WHEN REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE UP PENDING, THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 7. IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE FRESH APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE LD.CIT(E) ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRE VIDE QUESTION NO.26, AND ASKED WHETHER REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REFUSED/REJECTED EARLIER, IF SO, BRIEFLY STATE THE REASONS FOR SUCH REFUSAL /REJECTION. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO SAID QUESTION, STATED THAT DURING THE HEAVY FLOOD IN SURAT IN 2006, THE OLD REGISTRATION WAS DESTROYED AND NOT TRACEABLE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED IN THE REPLY THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR DUPLICATE REGISTRATION VIDE THEIR APPLICATION DATED 27.07.2017, TILL DATE THE SAME IS NOT RECEIVED. AND IN RESPONSE TO RTI APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT REGISTRATION RECORDED IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR FRESH REGISTRATION. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RAISED BY THE DIT(E) DATED 08.02.2018 ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 7 AND ASSESSEES REPLY THERETO DATED 21.02.2018. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT ASSESSEE TRUST BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED IN ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION MAY BE ALLOWED BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.SR.DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITS THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. IN ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS RIGHTLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. IN ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA. THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.08.2018 WAS APPLIED BY ASSESSEE ONLY ON 15.12.2017. THE ASSESSEE IS GRANTED REGISTRATION W.E.F. 15.12.2017 I.E. FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2017-18 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2018-19, THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT GRANTED, SUBSEQUENTLY, IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE BENEFIT CLAIMED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE LD. SR DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THE PROVISO OF SECTION 12A(2) IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PENDING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER SECTION 2(7A) OF THE ACT DEFINE THE DEFINITION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 8 PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS PENDING BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE LD. SR DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2004-05 AND ALLEGED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE STATUS OF ASSESSEE AS A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA AND EXEMPTION WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA. THE LD. SR.DR, ACCORDINGLY SUBMITS THAT IN ABSENCE OF VALID REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY RELIEF FOR THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITS THAT CASE LAWS RELIED BY LD.AR IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS AND CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME ARE BASED ON SOME DIFFERENT FACTS. THE LD SR DR FOR THE REVENUE ALSO FILED HER WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 04.06.2021 NARRATING ALL THE ABOVE SUBMISSION. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE LD.AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE OBTAINED THE COPY OF REGISTRATION FROM THE OFFICE OF ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 9 COMMISSIONER(EXEMPTION) OR TO APPLY IT AGAIN, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE THE CONTINUATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS IN TRIBUNALS. THE LD.AR FURTHER VEHEMENTLY PRAYED THAT AS PER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, WHEN AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE ON OR AFTER 01.01.2007, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS MADE. THE PROVISO ATTACHED TO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12ASHALL APPLY TO A TRUST OR INSTITUTION, WHERE THE APPLICATION IS MADE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH INSTITUTION OR TRUST WAS EARLIER GRANTED REGISTRATION. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING VALID REGISTRATION SINCE 1974 AND THE SAME WAS NOT CANCELLED OR REVOKED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALWAYS TREATED AS A CHARITABLE TRUST AND ALLOWED THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT ONLY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THOUGHT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR FRESH REGISTRATION AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED VIDE REGISTRATION DATED 26.06.2018 W.E.F 15.12.2017. ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 10 12. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN MAYUR FOUNDATION (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHEN THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF AN APPEAL IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS PENDING. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED AND IS DUTY BOUND, TO PASS AN ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSING THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT COULD NOT BE CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAME TO AN END WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ARE MEANT TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. IF THIS BE SO, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COMPLETE AND IS PENDING TILL THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS GIVEN EFFECT TO BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY BY COMPUTING THE CORRECT TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE COURT NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAME TO AN END WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED. THUS, THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. SR DR THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE BENEFIT OF PROVISO OF SECTION 12A(2) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT. 13. FURTHER, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS CCMP (SUPRA) BY REFERRING THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 11 WHEN REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND APPEAL IN CONTINUATION OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IS ALSO COVERED BY THE PROVISO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12A OF INCOME TAX ACT. 14. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIM WAS NOT CONSIDERED ON MERIT IN ABSENCE OF PRODUCTION OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION DATED 26.06.2018, THOUGH IT IS EFFECTIVE FROM 15.10.2017. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AT THE FIRST APPEAL AS WELL AS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT ASSESSEE-TRUST IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINED THEIR OWN RECORD NOR REFUTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REGISTRATION NUMBER PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REFERENCES ARE NOT CORRECTED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT BEFORE MOVING FRESH APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT (RTI), FOR SEEKING THE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE GRANTED INITIALLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE REPLY OF CPIO AND THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RTI. MOREOVER, ON FURTHER FILING FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED FRESH REGISTRATION. IN OUR VIEW, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED FRESH CONSIDERATION BY THE LD.AO IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN MAYUR FOUNDATION ITA NO.149/SRT/2017 (AY 2013-14) (SHREE SURTI MODHVANIK HITVARDHAK MANDAL 12 (SUPRA) AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL AS REFERRED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AFRESH BY CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS AS REFERRED ABOVE AND PASS THE ORDER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCE OF ANY OF OUR OBSERVATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS, EVIDENCES AND INFORMATION TO THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER ANNOUNCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL ON 9 JUNE, 2021 IN THE VIRTUAL COURT HEARING. SD/- SD/- ( DR ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SURAT, DATED: 09/06/2021 / SGR COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT