S E T U., V. Commissioner of Income-tax -1,

ITA 1610/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7634 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKAR A RAO, AM . / ITA NO.1610/PUN/2014 SETU AHMEDNAGAR, C/O. COLLECTOR OFFICE COMPOUND, AHMEDNAGAR PAN : AAHTS3279C . /APPELLANT VS. CIT-1, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARI KRISHAN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.04.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT-1, PUNE, DATED 10-07-2014. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT GRANTED THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 W.E.F. 31-08-2009 (I.E. A.Y. 2010-11) AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AP PLICATION FILED ON 04-05- 2006 WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, THE REGISTRATIO N IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT AND IGNORE THE ORDER OF HO N ITAT. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE LD. CIT MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO G RANT REGISTRATION TO THE APPELLANT SINCE THE DATE OF ITS INCEPTION BY CONDON ING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION. 2. IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT THE APPLICATION DATED 16-03-2009 FILED ON 31-08-2009 BY THE APPELLANT IN FORM NO.10A FOR GRAN T OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, BEING A TRUE COPY O F THE EARLIER APPLICATION FILED ON 04-05-2006, THE DATE OF APPLICATION BE HEL D AS 04-05-2006 AND THE LD.CIT MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE APPELLANT SINCE THE DATE OF ITS INCEPTION BY CONDONING THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPLICATION. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE PERMISSION TO ADD, AMEN D, MODIFY, ALTER, REVISE, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, IF DEEMED NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST AND FILED FORM 10A FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE ACT ON 31-08-20 09. THE REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT ON FINDING THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. MATTER REACHED TO THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE APPEAL, THE TR IBUNAL ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE AS SESSEE TRUST CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN PURSUANT TO THE DECISION OF GOVT. OF MAHA RASHTRA TO PROVIDE CERTAIN ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IN THE MATTERS RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION IN VARIOUS GOVT. OFFICES AT A NOMINAL PRIC E. THE CHARGES COLLECTED BY THE TRUST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMME RCIAL TRANSACTIONS/ ACTIVITY IN ORDER TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12 A OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT, WITH SIMILAR OBJECTS, THE REGISTRATIO N U/S.12A OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED TO THE DISTRICT SETU CENTRE, NASHIK. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AGRICULT URAL PRODUCE AND MARKET COMMITTEE 291 ITR 419 TOO. ACCORDINGLY, TH E TRIBUNAL GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE ACT. REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED PROSPEC TIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, I.E. FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 ONWARDS. FURTHER, IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALTERN ATE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CONTEXT OF EARLIER APPLICATION DATED 04-05 -2006, REGARDING GRANTING OF DEEMED REGISTRATION, CIT OBSERVED THAT THE S AID ALTERNATE GROUND BECOMES REDUNDANT. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE OR DER OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AUTO CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT & RESEAR CH INSTITUTE LTD. IN ITA NOS. 20/PN/2012 AND 265/PN/2012 ORDER DATED 27-1 1-2013, WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC OR DEEMED REGISTRATION IF APPLICATION FILED U/S.12A OF THE ACT WHEN THE SAME IS NOT DISPOSED OF WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. ON THESE FACTS, BEFORE US, ASSESSEE RAISED THE ABOVE GROUNDS SEEKING REGISTRATION IN RESPONSE TO THE EARLIER APPLICATION DATED 04-05-2006. 3 4. NARRATING THE ABOVE FACTS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ASPECT OF GRANTING REGISTRATION W.E.F. 04-05-2006 WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. THE FACT OF CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE AS REDUNDANT SPEAKS ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE. AS PER LD. COUNSEL, THE FINDING OF REDUNDANCY DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION FROM 04-05-2006 TO 31-08-2 009. REQUESTING FOR REMANDING THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT, RAISED IN THE GR OUNDS, LD. COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF PUNE BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.123/PN/2011 DATED 29-06-2012 AND THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOCIETY FOR THE PRO MOTION OF EDUCATION IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1478 OF 2016 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF DEEMED REGISTRATION WHEN THE APPLICATION U/S .12A OF THE ACT WAS NOT ADJUDICATED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, WAS DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE PU NE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUTIKA SEVA MANDIR VS. ITO IN ITA N OS. 136/PN/2015 AND 1060/PN/2015 DATED 23-09-2016, LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RELEVANT FOR THE PROPOSITION FOR GRANTING OF DEEMED REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FR OM THE DATE OF APPLICATION WHEN THE CIT FAILED TO ATTEND TO THE APPLICATION WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. LD. COUNSEL REQUESTED FOR DIRECTING THE CI T FOR CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DATED 04-05-2006 AND CONDONE THE DELAY IF ANY, AND GRANT DEEMED REGISTRATION STATUS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID PERIOD. 5. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT. 6. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE OF GRANTING R EGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE ACT . IT IS THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE, IS ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION AND 4 ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE CIT TO GRANT REGIS TRATION W.E.F. 31-08-2009. CIT GRANTED THE SAME IN COMPLIANCE OF TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND, HOWEVER, HE TREATED THE ISSUE OF GRANTING REGISTRATION BASED ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 04-05-2006 AS REDUNDAN T. IN THE PROCESS, HE IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE LOST THE REGISTRA TION BENEFITS WITH EFFECT FROM 04-05-2006 TO 31-08-2009. FURTHER, THE FACT OF FILING OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AND CONSEQUENT BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE ARE LEFT UNATTENDED OR UN-ADJUDICATED. AS SUCH, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS NOT FILED AT ALL OR FILED BELATEDLY AND THER EFORE, THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONABLE. FURTHER, BEFORE US, IT IS THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO REMAND THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION FOR WANT OF A SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. O N THE ISSUE OF DEEMED REGISTRATION, WE ALSO PERUSED THE DECISIONS CITED B EFORE US BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE NEVER RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE FROM CIT ON THE SAID ORIGINAL APPLICATIO N DATED 04-05-2006. THEREFORE, WE FIND IT RELEVANT TO DIRECT THE CIT-1, PUNE TO CONSIDER THE SAID JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF EDUCATION (SUPRA) AS WELL AS TH E DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER GRANTING REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL ISSU E THAT THE CIT IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PASS AN ORDER WITHIN SIX MONTHS REJ ECTING OR ACCEPTING THE REQUEST OF REGISTRATION. NON-ACTION OF THE CIT ON SU CH APPLICATION PERMITS THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF DEEMED REGIS TRATION. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT SHALL PASS SPEAKING ORDER A FTER CONSIDERING 5 THE RELEVANT FACTS AND LAW. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D.KARUNAKAR A RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 25 TH APRIL, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT-1, PUNE 4. , , / DR A, ITAT, PUNE; 5. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRI VATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE