Development of Education and Environment Trust, Madurai V. CIT, Madurai

ITA 2314/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7691 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G M DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2314/MDS/2015 DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION AND ENVIRONMENT TRUST, NO.50/1-B-13, K.K.NAGAR, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI PAN : AAATD4294K V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MADURAI ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & ./ ITA NO. 2315/MDS/2015 DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION AND ENVIRONMENT TRUST, NO.50/1-B-13, K.K.NAGAR, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI PAN : AAATD4294K V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, MADURAI ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.M. DAS, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 01.02.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2017 2 I.T.A. NO.2314/MDS/2015 I.T.A. NO.2315/MDS/2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHENN AI. LET US FIRST TAKE ITA NO.2314 OF 2015. 2. SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) DISMISSED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT ONE SHRI V. FRANCIS, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW THE APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION UND ER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE LD. COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER AUTHORIZED ANYBODY EITHER TO APP EAR BEFORE THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) OR TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL CALLED FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS). WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, SHRI G.M. DAS, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRODU CED THE ORIGINAL FILE FOR VERIFICATION. IN THE ORIGINAL FILE, IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE MANAGING TRUSTEE MS. B. PREMALATHA AND ANOTHER TRUS TEE APPEARED 3 I.T.A. NO.2314/MDS/2015 I.T.A. NO.2315/MDS/2015 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND THEY AGREED FOR WITHDRA WAL OF THE APPLICATION. BOTH OF THEM SIGNED THE ORDERS SHEET ENTRY. AFTER VERIFICATION, THE ORIGINAL FILE OF THE CIT (EXEMPTI ONS) WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE LD. D.R., SHRI G.M. DAS. 3. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HOW THE ASSESSEE GOES ON FILING APPLICATION AFTER APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, FOR REGISTRATION WITHOUT PROSECUTING THE ORIGINAL APPLI CATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. COUNSEL VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THA T THIS IS THE SECOND APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT MAIN TAINABLE. AN APPLICATION WAS INITIALLY FILED IN THE YEAR 1993 AN D THE RESULT OF THE SAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, A SECOND APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 27.09.2013. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MAD URAI GRANTED REGISTRATION W.E.F. 01.04.2013. THE LD. COUNSEL SU BMITTED THAT A DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDER ON THE APPLICATION FILED IN THE YEAR 1993. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI G.M. DAS, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE A PPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.09.2013, THE CIT-1, MADURAI GRANTED REGISTRATION W.E.F. 01.04.2013 BY AN ORDER DATED 26.03.2014. THE PRESE NT APPEAL IS 4 I.T.A. NO.2314/MDS/2015 I.T.A. NO.2315/MDS/2015 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON THE SECOND APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. D.R., SUCCESSIVE APPLICATION CANNOT BE FILED SINCE THE REGISTRATION WAS ALREADY GRANTED. THEREFORE THIS APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DISMISSED THE APPLICATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE AS SESSEES REPRESENTATIVE SHRI V. FRANCIS. NOW, IT IS DEMONST RATED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT ENGAGED NOBODY T O REPRESENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. IN FACT THE MANAGING TRUSTEE AND THE ANOTHER TRUSTEE APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND THEY A GREED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION SINCE THE REASONS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE SECOND APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER HAS RIG HTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL D O NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER. 6. NOW COMING TO ITA NO.2315 OF 2015, SHRI T. VASUD EVAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICA TION WAS FILED FOR 5 I.T.A. NO.2314/MDS/2015 I.T.A. NO.2315/MDS/2015 REGISTRATION ON 27.09.2013 AND THE REGISTRATION WAS IN FACT GRANTED W.E.F., 01.04.2013. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE WA S A HUGE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11. UNLES S THE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED RETROSPECTIVELY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PA Y HUGE LIABILITY. THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION MAY BE GRANTED RETROSPE CTIVELY. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHETHER THERE IS ANY POWER FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REG ISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND GRANT REGISTRATION WITH RETROSP ECTIVE OPERATION, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS NO SUCH POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION. THE L D. COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS A REAL DIFFICULTY FOR THE ASSESSEE IN MEETING THE LIABILITY. THEREFORE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE REGISTRATION MAY BE GRANTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPLICATION ON 27.09.2013, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSE SSEES TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED BY A TRUST DEED ON 20.09.1993. SECTION 12A(1)(A) OF THE ACT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FILE THE APPL ICATION FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTION. THE COMMISSIONER WAS 6 I.T.A. NO.2314/MDS/2015 I.T.A. NO.2315/MDS/2015 EMPOWERED TO GRANT REGISTRATION EVEN THOUGH THE APP LICATION WAS FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT PROVIDED THE COMMISSIONER SATISFIED T HAT THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME WAS PREVENTED FROM MAKING THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOR SUFFICIENT REASONS. HOWEVER, SUCH POWER WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF THE APPL ICATION MADE ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF JUNE 2007 WHICH IS OBVIOUS FROM THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 12(1)(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE APP LICATION WAS FILED ON 27.09.2013. THEREFORE, AT THE BEST, THE CIT(EXEMPT IONS) COULD GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS FILED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED FROM 01.04.2013, AS PER TH E EXISTING PROVISIONS OF LAW. SINCE, THE APPLICATION WAS FILED AFTER 1 ST OF JUNE 2007, THE COMMISSIONER OF EXEMPTION HAS NO POWER TO CONDONE T HE DELAY OR GRANT REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT. T HEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 8. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMS THAT AN APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, IN THE YEAR 1993. HOWEVER, NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN CASE SUCH AN APPLICATION WAS FILED EI THER IN THE YEAR 1993 OR 7 I.T.A. NO.2314/MDS/2015 I.T.A. NO.2315/MDS/2015 IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSES SEE TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS IT MAY NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR DISP OSAL OF THAT APPLICATION. 9. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. JR. /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENTS 3. !' ( )/CIT(A) 4. !' /CIT 5. # $ /DR 6. %&' /GF.