M/s. A.P. Endowments Archakas and other Employees Welfare Fund Trust, Hyderabad V. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 1994/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61911 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 147; 148; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1993 AND 1994/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 AND 2005-06 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST, APPELLANT HYDERABAD. (PAN AABTA6286F) VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-I, RESPONDENT HYDERABAD. ITA NOS. 1672 AND 1673/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 AND 2005-06 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST, APPELLANT HYDERABAD. (PAN AABTA6286F) VS. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), RESPONDENT HYDERABAD. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING : 10/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/ 06/2014 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M: THESE ARE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHIL E ITA.NO.1993 & 1994/HYD/2011 ARE AGAINST ORDER DATED 04.12.2006 OF THE DIT(E), HYDERABAD, THE OTHER TWO APPEALS IN ITA NO. 1672 & 1673/HYD/2012 ARE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) PERTAININ G TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS CO MMON AND ISSUES ARE INTER-CONNECTED ALL THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED T OGETHER AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS COMBINED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE. 2 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST ITA.NO.1993 & 1994/HYD/2011 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS IS WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE DIT(E) WHILE ALLOWING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT HAS GRANTED IT PROSPECTIVELY AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF C REATION OF THE TRUST. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS EMANATING FROM THE MATERIALS ON RECORD ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF AN DHRA PRADESH UNDER THE A.P. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDO WMENT ACT, 1987 VIDE TRUST DEED/MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION D ATED 21.07.1998. IT FURTHER APPEARS FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE TRUST WAS CREATED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOR THE SOCI AL WELFARE OF THE ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF TEMPLES. THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST COMPRISES OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS DE VASTHANAMS. THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE DIT( E), HYDERABAD ON 27.06.2006 IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER FOR GRANT OF RE GISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE DIT(E) VIDE IMPU GNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2006 GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE TRU ST UNDER SECTION 12A (A) OF THE ACT, BUT HE GRANTED IT PROSPECTIVELY W.E .F. 01.04.2006 BY REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 06 YEARS 11 MONTHS 06 DAYS, THEREBY REJECTING ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATIO N FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST I.E., 27.09.1998. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE DI T(E), ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH ON 05.12.2011. THESE APPEALS CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFOR E A BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON 21.05.2012. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, DISPOSED OF BOTH THE APPEALS IN A COMMON ORDER DATED 06.06.2 012 BY CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATIO N U/S 12A AND REMITTED 3 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST THE MATTER TO THE DIT(E) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSID ER GRANTING REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST. SUBSEQUENT TO THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE DEPARTMENT FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DT.6.6.2012 PASSED BY THE BENCH FOR THE REASON THAT THOUGH THERE IS DELAY OF 1757 DAYS IN PRESENTING TH E APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT BUT THE BENCH WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF DELAY HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS ON MERITS. UPON CONSIDERING THE MISC . APPLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND APPEALS WERE AGAIN POSTED FOR HEARING. 5. IN COURSE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS FURNISHED BEFORE US REASONS EXPLAINING DELAY OF 175 7 DAYS IN PRESENTING THE APPEALS AND HAS SOUGHT CONDONATION OF THE SAME. THOUGH, THE REASONS FOR DELAY ARE IN AFFIDAVIT FORMAT SIGNED BY THE TRUSTEEBUT ACTUALLY IT IS NOT A SWORN AFFIDAVIT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, REA SON FOR DELAY AS PER ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS AS UNDER- THE ORDER OF DIT(E), HYDERABAD, DATED 04/12/20065, WAS RECEIVED ON 14/12/2006, AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED IN T IME AS THE PAPERS HAD BEEN MISPLACED BY ONE OF OFFICE STAFF AN D THE SAME COULD BE TRACED OUT AND COULD BE FILED ON 05/12/201 1 WITH THE DELAY OF 1757 DAYS AS THE APPEAL WAS DUE FOR FILING ON 12/02/2007 AND INSTEAD OF THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED ON 05/1 2/2011. THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONE D AND THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONSIDERED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS, THE DELAY MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONSIDERED DUE TO CIRC UMSTANCES WHICH WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT AS THERE IS REASON ABLE CAUSE FOR BELATED FILING OF THE APPEALS, THE DELAY MAY BE CON DONED. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE EARLIER OCCASION THE TRIBUNAL HAVING FO UND MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION FOR 4 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST REGISTRATION, BUT HAS ALSO DIRECTED THE DIT(E) TO C ONSIDER GRANTING REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST . THEREFORE, TECHNICALITIES SHOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY OF SUBSTA NTIVE JUSTICE. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT DELAY IN FILING OF THE AP PEALS IS DUE TO A BONAFIDE REASON AND NOT DUE TO ANY DELIBERATE LATCH ES OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BY NOT PREFERRING THE APPEALS IN TIME, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE GAINED ANYTHING, RATHER, THE ASSESSEE RAN THE RISK OF NOT AVAILING EXEMPTION . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAVING BEEN CREATED WITH A CHARITABLE OBJECT FOR BENEFITING THE ARCHAKAS, DELAY NEEDS TO BE CONDONED FOR THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND OBJECTED TO CONDONATION OF DELAY. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMITTEDLY , THERE IS A DELAY OF 1757 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. SECTION 253(3) PRESCRIBES THAT AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER TO BE APPEALED AGAINST. HOWEVE R, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 253 EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT AN APPEA L BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 60 DAYS IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. THERE IS NO STRAIGHT JACKET FORMULA TO MEASURE WHAT CONSTITUTES SUFFICI ENT CAUSE AS IT HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS INVOLVED IN EACH I NDIVIDUAL CASE. FURTHER, THE SATISFACTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y MUST BE ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND SHOULD NOT BE AR BITRARY OR MECHANICAL. IN CASE OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION V/S. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS, AIR 1987 SC 1353, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE INTER PRETING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS LAID DOWN CERTAIN PRINCIPLES WHICH 5 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST CERTAINLY CAN GUIDE US IN DECIDING THE ISSUE. THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE WORDS SUFFICIENT CAUSE ARE ADEQUAT ELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING AN APPEAL LATE. REFUSIN G TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF DELAY IS CONDONED, THE HIGHEST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD B E DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN SU BSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OT HER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR TH E OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON- DELIBERATE DELAY. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELA Y IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALAFIDE. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY R ESORTING TO DELAY. RATHER HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. THE HONBLE APEX COU RT OBSERVED THAT JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALISE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMO VING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 9. AS CAN BE SEEN, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSE E HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE BELATED FILING OF APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE FA CT THAT RELEVANT PAPERS WERE MISPLACED BY ONE OF THE OFFICE STAFF AND THE A PPEALS COULD BE FILED ONLY AFTER THE PAPERS WERE TRACED OUT. CONSIDERED I N THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AS ABOVE, IN OU R VIEW, THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDH RA PRADESH ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOR THE BEN EFIT OF THE ARCHAKAS. IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT SO FAR AS THE OBJE CT OF THE TRUST IS 6 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE CHA RITABLE NATURE OF SUCH OBJECT AS THE DIT(E) HAS HIMSELF GRANTED REGISTRATI ON U/S 12A OF THE ACT, THOUGH, PROSPECTIVELY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, DELAY NEEDS TO BE CONDONED, AS OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST WO ULD BE DEPRIVED OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DE LAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 10. SO FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE ARE CONCERNED , IT IS WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED F OR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF TRUST. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE DIT(E) HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE TRUST PR OSPECTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2006 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED PROPERLY THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR RE GISTRATION. HOWEVER AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, DURING THE EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSE E HAD EXPLAINED THE CAUSE OF DELAY IN MAKING THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE DIT(E) IN AN AFFIDAVIT. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE THE DIT(E). THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HELD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER WHILE DISPOSI NG OF THE APPEALS IN ITA NO. 1993 & 1994/HYD/2011 DATED 06/06/2012: 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRUST HAS FILED THE AP PLICATION TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ON THE BONA-FIDE B ELIEF THAT THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER WAS AN APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER HAS MADE FREQUE NT REQUESTS TO THE CHAIRMAN, CBDT ON THE BELIEF THAT T HE POWER OF GRANTING 100% EXEMPTION TO THE TRUST FROM THE PURVI EW OF INCOME TAX LIES WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN CBDT. DUE TO THESE REASONS, THE TRUST COULD NOT FIL E THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TRUST WITHIN THE ST IPULATED TIME BEFORE THE DIT(E) AND THE REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN GRANTE D WITH EFFECT FROM 1997-98 TILL TODAY. THE ASSESSEE BASED ON HIS BONAFIDE BELIEF HAD BEEN APPROACHING THE WRONG AUTHORITIES FOR GRAN TING 7 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST EXEMPTION. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES WHO AR E IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THINGS HAVE NOT ADVISED THE ASSESSEE R EGARDING THE PERSON TO WHOM THE APPLICATION SHOULD HAVE MADE NOR DID THEY FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO THE CORRECT AUTHORITY, L EADING TO THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPLICATION TO THE CORRECT AUTHO RITY BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. SINCE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND REMIT THE MA TTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DIT(E), WHO SHALL DECIDE UPON THE A PPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONSIDERING THE CASE IN TERMS OF SECTIO N 12AA. FURTHER THE DIT(E) SHALL CONSIDER ACCORDING REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. 11. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AFORESAID EXTRACTED POR TION OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLI CATION BEFORE THE DIT(E) WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICA TION FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE A WRONG FORUM. FURTHER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT T HE ASSESSEE IN FACT WAS PURSUING THE MATTER WITH CBDT AND THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DELAY WAS DELIBERATE OR DUE TO LATCHES OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. MAY BE DUE TO LACK OF PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AS WELL AS PROPER GUIDANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM MAKING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN TIME BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORI TY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESS ED BY THE BENCH EARLIER AND SEE NO REASON TO TAKE A VIEW OTHER THAN WHAT WAS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ORDER DATED 06/06/2012 REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE. IT NEEDS TO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECALLED DUE TO TECHNICAL REASONS AND NOT FOR ANY ERROR OF J UDGMENT OR ERROR IN DECISION MAKING PROCESS, HENCE, THE CONCLUSION DRAW N BY THE BENCH STILL HOLDS GOOD. ACCORDINGLY, IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DI RECTION GIVEN BY THIS BENCH EARLIER IN PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE ORDER DT.6.6.2 012(SUPRA), WE 8 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION FOR REGISTR ATION BEFORE DIT(E) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO CO NSIDER ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF TRUST. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 1672 AND 1673/H/2012 13. THESE ARE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE CIT(A) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005 -06. 14. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005- 06 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECL ARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. INITIALLY ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ACCEPTING THE IN COME DECLARED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICING THAT T HE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, WITH EFFE CT FROM 01/04/2006, REOPENED THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 147 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 1 48 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY STATING THEREIN THAT T HE RETURN FILED EARLIER MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSU ED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BY BRINGING TO TAX THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,03,30,007/- AND RS. 88,40,365/- FOR AYS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. 15. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS SO PAS SED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). 9 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST 16. THE CIT(A), THOUGH, HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF REG ISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. H OWEVER, THE CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DAT ED 06/06/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1993 & 1994/HYD/2011, CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE DIT(E) AND REMI TTED THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION HELD IN THE FOLLOWING M ANNER: 6.2 HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 06/06/2012 IN ITA NOS. 1993 AND 1994/HYD/2011 IN THE APPELLANT CASE HAVE HELD THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BY THE A PPELLANT. CONDONING THE DELAY, THEREFORE THEY HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DIT(E) DIRECTING HIM TO DECIDE UPON THE APPL ICATION OF THE APPELLANT AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE IN TERMS OF SE CTION 12AA. IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE DIT(E) SHALL CONSI DER ACCORDING REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF A CREATIO N OF LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT IN THE MATER. IN VIEW OF T HE SAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT, THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST. IN CASE SUC H REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED SINCE INCEPTION, THE APPELLANT WOULD I NDEED BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 FOR THE AY 2004-05 AL SO SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS U/S 11 TO 13 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, TILL THE TIME SUCH REGISTRATION IS GRANTED BY THE DIT(E) SPECIFICALLY FOR THE AY 2004-05, NO INFIRMITY CAN B E SAID TO EXIST IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. IDENTICAL ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED FOR THE AY 2005-0 6. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 11 OF THE ACT DUE TO ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12 A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHILE DECIDIN G ASSESSEES 10 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST APPEALS IN ITA NOS1993 & 1994/HYD/2011(SUPRA) WE HA VE DIRECTED THE DIT(E) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF GRANTING REGISTRATI ON FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF TRUST. THEREFORE, WE CONSIDER IT APPROP RIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER NECESSA RY ORDER IS PASSED BY THE DIT(E) IN RESPECT OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGISTRA TION U/S12A. 18. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. TO SUM UP, ALL FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/06/2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 6 TH JUNE, 2014 KV COPY TO:- 1) A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST C/O P. MURALI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 32. 2) DIT (EXEMPTIONS)-HYDERABAD 3) DDIT (EXEMPTIONS) 1, HYDERABAD 4) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD 11 ITA NOS. 1993 & 1994/H/11 & 1672 & 1673/H/14 A.P. ENDOWMENTS ARCHAKAS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND TRUST S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER