IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 604/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT WELFARE FUND COMMITTEE, KALAI ARANGAM, 15-D, MCDONALDS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPALLI-620 001. V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I, TIRUCHIRAPALLI [PAN: AAATT2186L] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.D. GOPAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. I. VIJAYAKUMAR, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 25-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-01-2012 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEA LS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI IN ITA NO. 451/08-09 DATED 9-3-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02. 2. SHRI V.D. GOPAL, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND DR. I. VIJAYAKUMAR, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST WHICH HAD BEEN REGISTERED UND ER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) ON 31-07-1975. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 604/MDS/2009 2 TRUSTEES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE VARIOUS HIGH LEV EL OFFICERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY BEING T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF TIRUCHIRAPALLI. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE RET URN OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO BE PROCESSED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE ASSE SSEE THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GOT THE REGISTRATION UNDER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 12AA WHICH WERE INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01-04-1997. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MADE AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10 FOR ACCUMULATION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE NECESSARY FORM NO.10 IN R EGARD TO THE ACCUMULATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD HELD THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SPENT 75% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BY SIMPLY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12A HAVING BEEN AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO MAKE A FURTHER APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA AS THIS WAS NOT PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT FORM N O.10 HAD BEEN FILED FOR ACCUMULATION THOUGH IT WAS ONLY A BELATED ONE WHICH WAS A TECHNICAL BREACH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D NOT CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS, THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION. I.T.A. NO. 604/MDS/2009 3 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT AFTER TH E INTRODUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA W.E.F. 01-04-1997 THE AS SESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE OBTAINED THE FRESH REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. IT WAS THE FURTHE R SUBMISSION THAT THE FORM NO. 10 WAS BELATED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAV E CONSIDERED THE SAID FORM NO.10 FOR ACCUMULATION AS NO ORDER ON THE SAID FORM NO. 10 HAD BEEN PASSED. HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUES WERE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATI ON. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS BO TH THE SIDES HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION WITHOUT PASSING ANY COMMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL, THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-DE CIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25/01/2 012. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 25 TH JANUARY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE