Dy, CIT Cir-1[1] Pune, Pune V. Auto Cluster Development & Research, Pune

ITA 265/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1209 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , ! ' , #$ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 265/PN/2012 #% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. AUTO CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT & RESEARCH, H BLOCK, PLOT NO. C-181, CHINCHWAD, PUNE 411019 PAN : AAFCA0558D / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE REVENUE BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN / DATE OF HEARING : 18-08-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-08-2015 ) / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, PUNE DATED 21-07- 2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE REVENUE HAS IMPUGNE D THE ACTION 2 ITA NO. 265/PN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN GRANTING DEEMED REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS NEIT HER REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT NOR UNDER SOCIETIES REG ISTRATION ACT, 1860, BESIDES THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF A LICENSE/REGISTRATION U/S. 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. 2. AT THE OUTSET SHRI KISHORE PHADKE APPEARING ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED U/S. 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A COPY OF SAME, THEREFORE, THE SA ME MAY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3. SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. THEREFORE, AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. 4. BOTH SIDES HEARD. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED U/S. 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED U/S. 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT IS A VITAL DOCUMENT WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. SINCE, THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS NOT PLA CED ON RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED ON PR ESUMPTIONS. THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION W AS NOT 3 ITA NO. 265/PN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 DISPOSED OF BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WITHIN THE M ANDATORY PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE PREMIS E OF DEEMED REGISTRATION U/S. 12A. HERE WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THA T THE FULL BENCH OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. MUZAFAR NAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPORTED AS 57 TAX MANN.COM 8 (ALL.) HAS HELD THAT NON-DISPOSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRAT ION WITHIN 6 MONTHS AS FIXED BY SECTION 12AA(2) WOULD NOT RESULT IN A DEEMED GRANT OF REGISTRATION. 5. IN THE BACKDROP OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FILE NEEDS A REVISIT TO ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED U/S. 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 FURNISH ED AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE DE-NOVO AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 AFTER THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 18 TH AUGUST, 2015 RK 4 ITA NO. 265/PN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 )*+#,-!.!', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-I, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . /01 , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 2 34 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #5 / BY ORDER, %6 ,1 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- / ITAT, PUNE