Neyveli Health Promotion & Social Welfare society, CHENNAI V. ITO, Cuddalore

ITA 266/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9298 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.266/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S NEYVELI HEALTH PROMOTION & SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY NEYVELI VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(2) CUDDALORE [PAN AAATN 5069 Q ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.B KOLI, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 - 03 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 - 05 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, CHENNA I, DATED 30.12.2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SHRI S.SRIDHAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE TAXABLE INCOME A T ` 33,84,950/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-SO CIETY APPLIED FOR ITA NO.266/14 :- 2 -: REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE R EGISTRATION WAS NOT GRANTED SO FAR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE DIT(E ). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE REGISTRA TION CERTIFICATE U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. HOWEVER, THA T CANNOT BE A REASON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AN APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BEF ORE THE DIT(E), THE LD. COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAV E ANY SUCH EVIDENCE FOR FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE THE DIT(E). THE LD. COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT AN APPLICATION WAS FILED. HOWEVER, NO MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE TO PROVE THE FILING OF APPLICATION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.B KOLI, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO REGISTER ITSELF U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BEFORE THE DIT(E) FOR CLAIMING EXEM PTION U/S 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, ITA NO.266/14 :- 3 -: ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CON FIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AD MITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY COPY OF THE REGISTRAT ION CERTIFICATE U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE SOCIETY IS ALSO NOT PRODUCED. THOUGH THE A SSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT AN APPLICATION WA S FILED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL NOW CONTENDS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT NO SUCH APPLI CATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE DIT(E) FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 5. FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, I T IS MANDATORY TO GET REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. SINCE NO REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED BY THE DIT(E) AS ON TODAY AND NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT ANY APPLI CATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE DIT(E), THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONF IRMED. ITA NO.266/14 :- 4 -: 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH MAY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 12 TH MAY, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF