M/s Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mhow V. The CIT-I, Indore

ITA 197/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7186 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.197/IND/2011 M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, MHOW PAN AAFFK 5074 P ... APPELLANT VS CIT-I, INDORE ... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.12.2011 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 13.6.2011 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX-I, INDORE WITH REGARD TO GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12A A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 1.3.2006 I.E. DATE OF SUBMISSION OF SECOND A PPLICATION IN PLACE OF DATE OF FILING OF FIRST APPLICATION ON 14. 2.2005. 2 2. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DUE TO CONFUSION OVER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSES SEE BETWEEN CIT-I & CIT-II, THE APPLICATION WAS DECLINED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE REVENUE AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE AP PLICATION DATED 14.2.2005 THROUGH UNDER POSTAL CERTIFICATE (U PC) FOR GRATING REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE SAMITI, THEREF ORE, THE DATE OF REGISTRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN W.E.F. 14.2.2005 A ND NOT FROM THE DATE OF SECOND APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON 1.3.200 6. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO WAIT FOR SOME TIME BECAUSE SOME TIME IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT AND ULTIMATELY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMMUNICATION FRO M THE DEPARTMENT, SECOND APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 1.3.200 6, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPRIVED OF ITS ELIG IBLE DEDUCTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS PAGES OF PAPER BOOK INCLUDING THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, WRIT PETITION NO.3594 OF 2011 AND CONSE QUENT ORDER DATED 5.5.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO S HOWED THE 3 UPC RECEIPT DATED 14.2.2005 WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT P AGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR SHRI ARUN DEWAN CONTENDED THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION CLAIMED TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF THE REV ENUE FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE REPLY DATED 17.7.2009 PASSED U/S 7 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, SIGNED BY THE C.P.I.O. WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DULY MENTIONED THA T, AS PER RECORDS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPLICATION ON 14.2.2005, THEREFORE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT RIGHTL Y GRANTED REGISTRATION W.E.F. 1.3.2006. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. UNDER THE AFOREMENT IONED FACTS, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DELIBERATE UPON THE VALIDITY OF UNDER POSTAL CERTIFICATE (UPC) ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. IT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED FROM THE REVENUES SIDE THAT EITH ER THE UPC IS FICTITIOUS OR NOT ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMEN T. THE POSTAL STAMP OF RS.2 AND THE SEAL OF THE ISSUING POSTAL OF FICE HAS BEEN DULY AFFIXED ON THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 14.2.2005. NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE AUT HENCITY OF 4 THE UPC, THEREFORE, OUTRIGHTLY, IT CANNOT BE DISCAR DED. ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF UPC RECEIPT, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT IT IS NOT THE NEW CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RATHER EFFORTS HA VE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF F ROM THE INITIAL STAGE ITSELF. IF THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT WAS APPREHENSIVE ABOUT THE ALL AUTHENCITY OF THE UPC THEN NOTHING PR EVENTED TO MAKE THE INQUIRY FROM THE ISSUING POST OFFICE, THER EFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE SAME AT THIS STAGE. THE JODH PUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HISSARIA BROTHERS VS . ITO (2005) 1 SOT 185 (JD); (2004) 84 TTJ (JD) 951 (ORDER DATED 9 .3.2004), HAS UPHELD THE AUTHENCITY OF THE UPC. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 20 TH JULY, 2011, ADDRESSED TO THE LD. CIT, HAS REQUESTE D TO GRANT REGISTRATION W.E.F. 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2005 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ONE APPLICATION ON 14.2.200 5 AND ENCLOSED THE UPC ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR READY REFERENCE . IN THAT LETTER, REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE REGARDING JURISDICT IONAL DISPUTE ALSO AND FURTHER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMMUNICATIO N FROM THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE FILED NEXT APPLICATION DAT ED 1.3.2006 WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AND REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WAS GRANTED 5 W.E.F. 1.3.2006 I.E. THE DATE OF FILING THE SECOND APPLICATION WITH FURTHER REQUEST FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE. 4. UNDER THE AFOREMENTIONED UNCONTROVERTED FACTS, W E REMAND THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT FOR R ECONSIDERATION THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, AS PER LAW. IT IS PERT INENT TO MENTION HERE THAT BEFORE RECONSIDERATION, THE ASSES SEE MAY BE PROVIDED DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE ARE MAK ING IT CLEAR, IF SO REQUIRED, THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT, I N ORDER TO SATISFY ITSELF, IS FREE TO EXAMINE THE AUTHENCITY OF THE UP C FROM THE ISSUING POSTAL OFFICE AND FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IF T HE SAID UPC IS FOUND TO BE GENUINE THEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT MAY BE CONSIDERED W.E.F. 14.2.2005, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 .12 .2011. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 .12.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYS!