Society For Training And Research On Panchayats And Rural Development, Kalyani, Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle-41, Nadia, Nadia

ITA 161/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4250 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 12; 144; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAI NI, AM ./ ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-2011) SOCIETY FOR TRAINING AND RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, KALYANI NADIA, WEST BENGAL. ICMARD BUILDING, 6 TH FLOOR, BLOCK -14/2, CIT SCHEME VIII (M), BIDHAN NAGAR, KOLKATA-700067 VS. ACIT-CIRCLE, KURCHIPOTA LANE, KRISHNA NAGAR, NADIA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AADTS2844P ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANJAN KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY REVENUE BY : SHRI TANUJ NEGI , JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 28/10/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/11/2016 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN O RDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.229/CIT(A)-XXXVI/KOL/ACIT,CIR/NADIA/2013-14 DATE D 29.10.2014, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (I N SHORT THE ACT), DATED 22/03/2013. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/03/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME NIL. TH E ASSESSEE`S CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 38,21,630. DURING ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 2 THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT THE SOCIETY HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON THE ENTIRE INCOME OF RS. 38,21,631/- BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. HENCE, THE TOTAL INCOME IS LIABLE TO PAY TAX AS NON-SPECIFIED AOP. ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND DID NOT SUBMIT THE EXPLANATIONS/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THE FOLLOWINGS: 5.0 APPELLANT`S SUBMISSION AND FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS CALLED FOR AND VERIFIED. ON VERIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT, AO HAD REPEATEDLY CALLED FOR THE EVIDENCE BASED ON WHI CH THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED ITS INCOME AS EXEMPT. IN FACT BEFORE MAKING ADDITION A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE BY AO, FOR TREATING ITS ENTIRE INCOME AS TAXABLE. DURING T HE APPELLATE STAGE, ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE MADE AN APPLICATION U/S 12A ADDRESSED TO ASSESSING OFFICER, ON 27 TH MARCH,2003. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE OF MAKING SUCH APPLICATION HAS BEEN PRODUCED EITHER DU RING ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDING. IN ANY CASE AS HAS BEEN CLEARLY LAID DOWN IN SECTION 12A ITSELF, SUCH APPLI CATION HAS TO BE MADE BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND NOT AO. THUS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, AVAILABLE ON RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING MADE AN APPLICATION TO COMMISSIONER U/S 12A OR COMMISSIONER GRANTING REGISTRATION AFTER DUE EXAMINATION U/S 12AA OF THE IT ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH REGISTRATION, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 WILL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO INCOME OF ASSESSEE INSTITUTION . THEREFORE, AO HAD CORRECTLY TREATED STATUS OF ASSESSEE AS AOP AN D TREATED ENTIRE INCOME AS TAXABLE. 6.0 IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THEREFORE, LD CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T MAKE AN APPLICATION U/S 12A BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSEE MADE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE AO BUT THE AO IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO GRANT ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 3 REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD . CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOT BEING SATI SFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BE FORE US AND HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THE ORDER OF THE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) XXXVI KOLKATA TO THE EXTENT THAT HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION OF RS. 38,21,630/- IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CAS E. 2.THE LD.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.38,21,630/- INCLUDES INTEREST OF RS. 3730424/- ON FUNDS MAINLY RECEIVED FROM CENTRAL GOVT. FOR UTILIZ ATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT PROJECTS. 3.THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM 10 A ON 27 TH MARCH FOR REGISTRATION AS CHARITABLE TRUST U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, H AD ALLOWED EXEMPTION OF INTEREST INCOME AND THEREBY APPLICATIO N FOR REGISTRATION WAS APPROVED DEFACTO. 4.THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUN D THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-NADIA HAD IGNORED ALL THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COPY OF FORM 10 A ON RECORD. 5.UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT BASED ON FACTUAL POSITION AND THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY DEMAND OF TAX AND INTEREST AGGREGATIN G RS.17,00,473/-. FOR THAT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LIA BLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 6.FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS WHICH MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE REND ERED. 4. ALTHOUGH IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE MAIN GRIEV ANCE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONFINED TO THE ISSUE THAT ASSESSEE HAD AP PLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A (A) TO GET THE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER CHA RITABLE TRUST U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961.THE DEPARTMENT ALLOWED E XEMPTION IN ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 4 PREVIOUS YEARS BY SENDING INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010-11 THAT ASSESSEE ( SOCIETY) HAD NOT MADE AN APPLICATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT, AND IT IS NOT REGISTERED TILL DATE UNDER SECTION 12 AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED EXEMPTION IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE (SOCIETY) IS TREATED AS REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OR NOT? 4.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED THAT OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS TO MEET THE VARIOUS NEEDS OF TRAININ G AND RESEARCH RELATED TO PANCHAYAT AND RURAL PANCHAYATS DEVELOPMENT/PANCHYAT RAJ INSTITUTIONS/PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE DIRECTORATE THE WEST BENGAL STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES/THE PRIS/EX TENSION OF TRAINING CENTRE DISTRICT TRAINING CENTRE/WORK FOR R ASHTRAYA GRAM SWARAJ YOJONA AND WORLD BANK SUPPORTED ISGP PROJECTS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE ( SOCIETY) HAD APPLIED BEFORE THE ACIT /ITO,WD (3) ON DATED 27 TH MARCH,2003. AFTER FILING OF FORM NO. 10A THE ASSES SEE VISITED CONCERNED DEPARTMENT FOR MORE THAN ONE TIME BUT FAI LED TO OBTAIN REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER ALLOWED EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE ( SOCIETY) IN ALL PREVIOUS YEARS BU T DENIED THE EXEMPTION FOR A.Y.2010-11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 THAT THE ASSESSEE ( SOCIETY) HAD APPLI ED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT BUT TILL DATE IT DID NOT GET REGISTR ATION CERTIFICATE U/S 12AA OF ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 5 THE ACT. THIS WAS THE REASON THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE EXEMPTION IN THE A.Y 2010-11. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE (SOCIETY) HAS BEEN GETTING EXEMPTION SINCE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY GOT THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE I. T.ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 06-07,07-08,08-09 AND 09- 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISPUTED THE EXEMPTION AND DENIED THE EXEMP TION ONLY IN A.Y.2010-11. THE LD AR FURTHER STATED THE ASSESSEE (SOCIETY) ALSO GOT THE EXEMPTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 BY WAY OF RECEIVING THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, THEREFOR E IT WOULD BE TREATED THAT THE DEEMED REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE (SOCIETY) H AD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS THE LD AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT,K ANPUR &ORS VS. SOCIETY FOR THE PROMN.OF EDN, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1478 OF 2016, WHEREIN THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 3.THE SHORT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DEEMED REG ISTRATION OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. THE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ONCE AN APPLICATION I S MADE UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AND IN CASE THE SAME IS NOT RESP ONDED TO WITHIN SIX MONTHS, IT WOULD BE TAKEN THAT 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 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION. 5.WE SEE NO BASIS FOR SUCH AN APPREHENSION SINCE TH AT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL SENSE IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT COULD BE UNDERS TOOD. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DISABUSE ANY APPREHENSION, W E MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE REGISTRATION OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECT ION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM 24.08.2003. ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 6 THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED US THAT THE AB OVE MENTIONED JUDGMENT OF HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IS SQUARELY APPLI CABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE THE ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION, AS IF THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED TRUST UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4.2 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE HAS VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD MADE AN APPLICATION U/S 12A (A) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT ONLY BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. IN ORDER TO GET REGISTERED UNDER CHARITABLE TRUST ( U/S 12AA ), THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. THE CONC ERNED INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES ARE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE ASSESSEE MADE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WHO IS NOT A PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY TO REGI STER THE CHARITABLE TRUST. HENCE IT WOULD BE TREATED THAT NO ANY APPLICATION H AD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO GET REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE TRUST TI LL DATE. FOR EXAMPLE APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER U/S 143(3) CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BUT IF THE ASSESSEE FILES THE SAID APPEAL BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THEN IT WOULD BE TREATED THAT NO ANY APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IS N OT AN AUTHORITY TO HEAR THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT TAKE THE SHELTER/MAKE ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 7 EXCUSE THAT DEEMED REGISTRATION CONCEPT AS HELD BY THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE CITED (SUPRA) WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO HIM. HAD THE ASSESSEE MADE AN APPLICATION U/S 12A (A) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, THEN THE CASE OF HON`BLE SUPREME COURT CITED (SUPRA) WOULD H AVE BEEN APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE (OF MAKING SUCH APPLICATI ON U/S 12A(A)) EITHER BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). THE APPLICATION U/S 12A(A) ACKNOWLEDGED ( STAMPED BY AO) BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRST TIME BEFORE US, THEREFORE IT IS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE APPLICATION U/S 12A (A) WA S NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE AO NOR BEFORE CIT (APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE LD DR HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON THREE COUNTS: 1) THE APPLICATION U/S 12A(A) HAD NOT BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, THAT IS, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITL ED TO TAKE THE BENEFIT OF DEEMED REGISTRATION AS PER THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY HON`BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE CITED (SUPRA). 2) THE APPLICATIO N U/S 12A(A) WAS NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE CIT(A) . 3) INTIMATION U/S 143(1) IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN PREVIOUS YEAR S THE DEPARTMENT SENT ONLY INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE AS SESSING OFFICER DOES NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESS EE IN DETAIL. ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 8 4.3 HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE, AS THE PROPOSITIONS CANVASSED BY THE LD DR ARE SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS EXPLAINED BY HIM, AS CITED A BOVE. AS LD DR EXPLAINED THAT IN ORDER TO GET REGISTERED UNDER CHARITABLE TRUST ( U/S 12A ), THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX AUTH ORITIES ARE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX. THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED AN APPLICATI ON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO REGIST ER THE ASSESSEE UNDER CHARITABLE TRUST. IN ORDER TO TAKE THE BENEFIT OF T HE JUDGMENT OF HON`BLE SUPREME COURT, CITED SUPRA, AT LEAST AN APPLICATION U/S 12A (A) SHOULD BE MADE BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. TH EREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT, CITED SUPRA BY THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS UNDER CONSIDER ATION. BESIDES, THE APPLICATION U/S 12A(A) WAS NEITHER PRO DUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE CIT(A), THEREFORE WE M AY VIEW THIS TO SEND/REMIT THE CASE BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO EX AMINE THE APPLICATION. WE THINK THAT IT WILL NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE TO REMI T THE CASE BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE IT IS VERY MUCH APPARENT ON THE FACE OF APPLICATION U/S 12A(A) THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHO IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO REGIS TER THE TRUST U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED/ STAMPED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE XEROX CO PY OF THE APPLICATION ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 9 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THEREFORE IT W OULD BE TREATED THAT NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. AT THIS JUNCTURE WE REPRODUCE HERE THE RELEVANT POR TION OF SECTION 12A(A) AND SECTION 12 AA OF THE ACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 12A [CONDITIONS FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTI ONS 11 AND 12] (1) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND SECTION 12 SHA LL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNLESS TH E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED, NAMELY: (A) THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION IN THE PRE SCRIBED FORM AND IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 1973, OR B EFORE THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTION, WHICHEVER IS LATE R AND SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA.. SECTION 12AA : PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION (1) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, ON RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUT ION MADE UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (AA) OF SUB-SECTION (1)] OF SECTION 1 2A, SHALL (A) CALL FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION FROM THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS HE THINKS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTI ON AND MAY ALSO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THIS BEH ALF; AND (B) AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS OF T HE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND THE GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVITIES, HE (I) SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING REGISTERING THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION; (II) SHALL, IF HE IS NOT SO SATISFIED, PASS AN ORDE R IN WRITING REFUSING TO REGISTER THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION,AND A COPY OF SUC H ORDER SHALL BE SENT TO THE APPLICANT IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE CITED SECTION 12A AND 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE BENEFIT OF DEEMED REGISTRATION AS EXPLAINED BY THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA, AT LEAST THE ASSESSEE MUST FILE AN APPLICATION U/S 12A(A) BE FORE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX. ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 10 WE ALSO REITERATE THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD GIVEN EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE, AS IF ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED TRUST, AND THE ASSESSEE`S INCOME WAS EXE MPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06,06-07,0 7-08,08-09,09- 10,11-12 AND 12-13 AS PER THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE REC ORDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE HERE THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED BY THE DEPARMENT U/S 143(1) WHICH IS ONLY INTIMATION NOT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN CASE OF AN INTIMATION U/S 143(1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT GET OPPORTUNI TY TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD ALREADY PROVIDED EXEMPTIONS IN EARLI ER YEARS AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. MOREOVER, THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT CASE CITED ABOVE IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE AN ASSESSEE MAKES AN APPLICATION U/S 12A(A) AND THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RESPOND WITHIN SIX MONTHS THEN IT WOULD BE TREATED THAT THE REGISTRATI ON HAS TAKEN PLACE. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO SECTION 143 (1) OF THE ACT WHERE THE DEPARTMENT SENDS INTIMATION WITHOUT DOING PROPER SCRUTINY OF THE REC ORDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT OR DER AND NOT AN APPLICATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT THEREFORE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT CASE LAW CITED SUPRA, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BASED ON THE ABOVE CITED FACTUAL POSITION, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION DID NOT MAKE AN APPLIC ATION U/S 12A(A) OF ITA NO.161/KOL/2015 SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS & RUR AL DEVELOPMENT 11 THE ACT BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED INCOME TAX AUTHORITY AND INTIMATION U/S 143(1) IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ( BECAUSE AO DOES NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BEFORE HIM APPLICATI ONS/EXPLANATIONS ETC) AND JUDGMENT OF THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT CITED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPLY TO SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, HENCE WE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 4.4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23/11 /2016. SD/ - (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) S D/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; ! DATED 23/11/2016 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) % & , / ITAT, KOLKATA 1. / THE APPELLANT-SOCIETY FOR TRAINING & RESEARCH ON PANCHAYATS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2. / THE RESPONDENT.-ACIT, CIRCLE, NADIA 3. ' ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. ' / CIT 5. #$ % &&'( , '( , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. % )* / GUARD FILE. # & //TRUE COPY//