URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST KOTA, KOTA V. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 77/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2094 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRISH VAIDI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 13; 12; 11

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST UTI BUILDING, NEAR CAD CIRCLE, KOTA- 324007. CUKE VS. THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAALU 0110 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKUL KHURANA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI AMRISH VAIDI (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/03/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/04/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E), JAIPUR U/S 254 READ WITH SECTION 12AA(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT DATED 28.08.2019 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS TAKEN TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS:- 1.UNDER THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) IS PERVERSE, NON- SPEAKING ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(E) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 28. 08.2019 BY GOING AGAINST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR PROVIDED IN ORDER IN ORDER DATED 13.09.2017 IN APPEAL BEARING NO. 378/JP /2013. ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 2 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(E) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 28.0 8.2019 AGAINST THE PROVISION OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER, REGISTRATION IS GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(E) WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFF ECT FROM 01.04.2007 ONLY INSTEAD OF GRANTING REGISTRATION SINCE INCEPTI ON OF THE TRUST. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE TRUST FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM 10A ON 28.05.2007 FOR REGISTRAT ION U/S 12AA OF THE IT ACT BEFORE THE LD. CIT, KOTA. THE REGISTRATION WAS ORIG INALLY DENIED BY THE LD. CIT, KOTA VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2007, THEREAFTER THE MA TTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THEN TO THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2016, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS. THERE AFTER, THE COORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13.09.2017 IN ITA NO. 37 8/JP/2013 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WITH THE FOLLOWING DIR ECTIONS:- 2. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGM ENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) T O ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12 AA OF THE ACT. 3. THEREAFTER, IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS OF THE TR IBUNAL, THE LD CIT(E) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 HAS GRANTED REGISTR ATION TO THE ASSESSEE- TRUST AS GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY TRUST AND HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY WITH RETROSPECTIVE E FFECT FROM 01.04.2007 I.E. FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH A PPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(E) HAS GRANTED THE REGISTRATION HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE TRUST HAD SOUGHT REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF ITS INCEPTION I.E. 09 .07.1970 WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(E) HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 01 .04.2007. THEREFORE, THE ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 3 LIMITED GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL IS REGARDING NON- GRANT OF REGISTRATION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FRO M THE DATE OF ITS INCEPTION. 5. IN THIS REGARD, OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE C ONDONATION APPLICATION DATED 28.05.2007 WHICH WAS FILED ALONG WITH FORM 10 A BEFORE THE LD. CIT, KOTA FOR SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE RELEVANT CONTENTS READ AS UNDER:- THE URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA WAS CREATED BY G OVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN UNDER NOTIFICATION NO. 5(3) TP/70 DATED 9 TH JULY, 1970 PUBLISHED IN RAJASTHAN GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY ON ASA DA 19, FRIDAY SHAK SAMVAT 1892- JULY 10, 1970 BY THE ORDER OF THE GOVE RNOR, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED BY SECTION 8 READ WITH SECTION 9 AND 13 OF THE RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1959 TO ORDER FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOARD OF TRUSTEE FOR THE PROPOSE OF CARRYING O UT IMPROVEMENT OF THE URBAN AREA INCLUDED IN THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF K OTA TOWN. THE TRUST IS EXEMPT U/S 10 (20) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 AND ACCORDING NEVER BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE ACT TILL AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03. NOW WITH THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10(20) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 THE OFFICERS IN YOUR GOODSELFS CHARGE HAVE INFERRED THAT THENCEFORTH REVENUES OF THE URBA N IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA ARE LIABLE FOR TAXATION AND HAVE ASSESS ED THE TRUST FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, URBAN IMPROVEMENT T RUST, KOTA HAS APPLIED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ON PRESCRIBED FORM NO.10A. THE REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT FROM THE DATE OF ITS VERY INCEPTION I.E. 09.07.1970. ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 4 THE TRUST RESPECTFULLY SOUGHT YOUR GOOD SELF KIND A TTENTION THAT AS WE HAVE BEEN CREATED DIRECTLY BY THE GOVERNMENT IN EXE RCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 8 READ WITH SECTION 9 AND 13 O F RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1959 FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVEMEN T OF URBAN AREA OF KOTA TOWN WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. THE ENTIRE REVENUES OF THE TRUST FEED THE OBJECTIVE OF ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC CHARITY UNDER DIRECT CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN. WE ARE STILL A LOCAL AUTHORITY COVERED UNDER THE TE RM DISTRICT BOARD AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 10(20)(III). HOWEVER SINCE YOUR SUBORDINATES DO NOT SEEM TO ACCEPT, WE HAVE SOUGHT THE REGISTRATION U/S 12(A)(A) OF THE IT ACT. KINDLY APPRECIATE THA T SECTION 12(A)(A) COVERS RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELI EF AND ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND UIT , KOTA ALSO APPLYING ALL ITS RECEIPTS FOR THE SIMILAR PURPOSES OF GENERAL PU BLIC UTILITY ONLY UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT . THEREFORE, KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILLING OF F ORM NO. 10A. 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTRATION WAS ACCOR DINGLY SOUGHT FROM THE DATE OF THE INCEPTION OF THE TRUST I.E. 09.07.1970 AND GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS UNDER THE GENUINE BELIEF AND UNDERSTANDIN G THAT IT WAS A LOCAL AUTHORITY AND COVERED UNDER SECTION 10(20)(III), A POSITION WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE TILL A.Y 2002-03 AS WELL, IT DIDNT APPLY FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) AND A CONDONATION REQUEST WAS ACCORDINGLY FI LED ALONG WITH APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION UNDER 12A(A) OF THE ACT. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT GONE I N FURTHER APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2017 PASSED BY THE TR IBUNAL, THEREFORE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13.09.2017, THE LD. CIT(E) HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWI NG THE DIRECTION OF THE ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 5 TRIBUNAL AND HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION ONLY WITH EFF ECT FROM 01.04.2007 AS AGAINST THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MAT TER PERTAINING TO A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07 ARE PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND WHERE THE BENCH SO DECIDE NOT TO DIRECT REGISTRATIO N FROM THE CREATION OF THE TRUST, AT LEAST FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ONW ARDS, THE REGISTRATION MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE GRANTED AS THE OBJECT AND ACTIVIT IES IN PURSUIT OF SUCH OBJECTS REMAIN THE SAME FOR ALL THESE YEARS. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR PROVISIONS BY WAY OF PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 12A HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION MADE ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007 AND THEREFORE, WHERE THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED ITS APPLICATION MERELY FEW DAYS PRIOR I.E, ON 28.05.2007, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALIZED ESPECIALLY WHERE IT HAS ALSO MO VED A PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THERE IS NO FINDING THAT S UCH REQUEST FOR CONDONATION HAS BEEN REJECTED AND MORE SO, WHERE TH ERE IS A CLEAR DIRECTION BY THE TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW THE REGISTRATION OF THE TR UST U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECIS IONS:- CIT VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI [2010] 186 TAXM AN 460 (ALL.). CIT VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI [2011] 9 TAXMAN 117 (RAJ.). CIT VS. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI [2008] 170 TAXM AN 515 (M.P.). 9. PER CONTRA, THE LD.CIT/DR HAS DRAWN OUR REFERENC E TO THE LETTER DATED 14.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE ITO (HQRS) ON BEHALF OF LD CIT(E) AND CONTENTS THEREOF READ AS UNDER: KINDLY REFER TO THE SUBJECT MENTIONED ABOVE AND YO UR OFFICE LETTER NO. 11518 DATED 12.02.2019. ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 6 IN THIS CONNECTION, I AM DIRECTED TO INFORM YOU THA T AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT/ APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA OF THE SAID ACT IS NOT P OSSIBLE. 10. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT/DR THAT WHERE TH E ASSESSEE WAS DULY INFORMED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE RETROSPECTIVELY EFFECT/ APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA OF TH E ACT IS NOT POSSIBLE, THE LD. CIT(E) HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION W.E.F. 1 ST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS MOVE D THE APPLICATION. HE ACCORDINGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(E) AND SUBMITTED THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN GR ANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WHE THER SUCH REGISTRATION SHOULD BE GRANTED FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION OF THE TRUST OR FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE TRU ST WAS CONSTITUTED ON 9.07.1970 IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SE CTION 9 AND 13 OF THE RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1959 AND THE APPLI CATION SEEKING REGISTRATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST ON 28. 05.2007 BEFORE THE LD CIT, KOTA ALONG WITH A PRAYER SEEKING CONDONATION FOR TH E DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE RELEVA NT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A WHICH READ AS UNDER: 12A. (1) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND SECTION 12 SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNLESS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED, NAMELY: (A) THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME HAS MADE AN APP LICATION FOR ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 7 REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION IN THE PRE SCRIBED FORM AND IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER TO THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 1973, OR BEFORE THE EXP IRY OF A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTION, WHICHEVER IS LATER AND SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA: PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE T RUST OR INSTITUTION IS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION, (I) FROM THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE E STABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTION IF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER IS, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, SATISFIED TH AT THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME WAS PREV ENTED FROM MAKING THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID FOR SUFFICIENT REASONS; (II) FROM THE 1ST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE, IF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS NOT SO SATISFIED: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY APPLICATION MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1S T DAY OF JUNE, 2007 12. THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS THUS PROVIDE THAT WHER E THE APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION IS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ON E YEAR FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST AND WHERE THE LD CIT IS SATIS FIED THAT THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME WAS PREVENTED FROM MAKING THE SAID APPLICATION BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID FOR SUFFICIENT R EASONS, HE MAY RECORD THE REASONS FOR ARRIVING AT SUCH A SATISFACTION AND CON DONE THE DELAY, THEREAFTER, ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 8 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO INCOME OF SUCH TRUST FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST. ALTER NATIVELY, WHERE HE IS NOT SO SATISFIED, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 SHAL L APPLY IN RELATION TO INCOME OF SUCH TRUST FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR IN WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE TRUST. IN BOTH CASES, THE LD CIT THERE FORE HAS TO GIVE REASONS AND RECORD HIS REASONING IN WRITING BEFORE HE ARRIV ES AT A CONCLUSION THAT IN A GIVEN MATTER, THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED OR NOT. SIM ILAR ANALOGY WILL APPLY WHERE THE TRIBUNAL TAKES UP THE MATTER AND DIRECT T HE REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST. 13. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE REGISTRAT ION WAS ORIGINALLY DENIED BY THE LD. CIT, KOTA VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2007, T HEREAFTER THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THEN TO THE HONBLE R AJASTHAN HIGH COURT WHICH HAS REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DEC IDE THE SAME ON MERITS. THEREAFTER, THE COORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DAT ED 13.09.2017 HAS DIRECTED THE LD. CIT(E) TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS OF T HE TRIBUNAL, THE LD CIT(E) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 HAS GRANTED RE GISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. WE THUS FIND THAT DIRECTIONS OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH WERE LIMITED TO GRANT OF REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE TR UST U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH ARE SILENT IN TE RMS OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION SEEKING THE REGISTRATION. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE FIND TH AT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT ANY SUCH PLEADINGS WERE TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH REQUESTING FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY AND SEEKING REGISTRATION FROM INCEPTION OF THE TRUST OR THE APP LICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COORDINAT E BENCH. THEREFORE, WHERE THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DIRECTED REGISTRATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND HAS NOT PASSED ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS REGARDIN G CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT SINCE THE CONDONATION APPLICATION WAS FILED ALONG ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 9 WITH APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION BEFORE LD CIT (KOTA), THE DIRECTIONS SO PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH SHOULD BE READ AS IF THE DELAY HAS BEEN CONDONED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. MORE SO, WHERE THE ST ATUE REQUIRES THAT CONDONATION APPLICATION HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY DISP OSED OFF STATING CLEARING THE REASONS FOR EITHER CONDONING THE DELAY OR REJECTING THE APPLICATION. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE MATTER RELATING TO CONDONAT ION OF DELAY WAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. 14. HAVING SAID THAT, THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE LD CIT(E) WHILE PASSING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28 .08.2019 HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE CONDONATION APPLICATION SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER ANY SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THIS REGARD DISPOSING OFF THE SAID APPLICATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER , WE FIND THAT LD CIT(E) HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS G ENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY TRUST AND HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2007 I.E. FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SAID ORDER WHICH R EMOTELY SUGGEST THAT HE HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE CONDONATION APPLICATION SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND HAS STATED HIS REASONS AS TO WHY THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CONDONATION IN FILING THE APPLICATION HAS B EEN REJECTED. THE LD.CIT/DR HAS DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO THE LETTER DAT ED 14.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE ITO (HQRS) ON BEHALF OF LD CIT (E) WHEREIN THE ITO (HQRS) HAS STATED THAT I AM DIRECTED TO INFORM YOU THAT AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT/APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA OF THE SAID ACT IS NOT POSSIBLE. WE FIND THAT THE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED 14.02.201 9 IS NOT CLEAR AT ALL. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE SAID CO MMUNICATION AS TO WHETHER THE LD CIT(E) HAS EXAMINED THE CONDONATION APPLICATION DATED 28.05.2007 AND EXPLANATION SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE LD C IT(E) HAS CONSIDERED THE LAW ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 10 AS APPLICABLE FOR APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION FILED BEFORE 1.06.2007 WHEREIN THE POWERS HAVE BEEN CONFERRED ON THE LD CI T(E) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, OR THE AMENDED LAW FOR APPLICATION SEEKING R EGISTRATION FILED ON OR AFTER BEFORE 1.06.2007 WHEREIN NO SUCH POWERS FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY HAVE BEEN CONFERRED ON THE LD CIT(E). EVEN WHERE IT IS ASSUME D THAT THE LD CIT(E) HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION AND HAS APPLIED THE APPLICABLE LAW, THE AFORESAID COMMUNICATION DOESNT REFLECT TH E PRECISE REASONS AS TO WHY THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CONDONA TION OF DELAY WAS NOT ACCEPTED. AT MOST, SUCH COMMUNICATION REFLECTS THE CONCLUSION AND NOT THE REASONING AND THUS, DOESNT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHICH MANDATE THE CIT(E) TO SPECIFY THE REASONS IN WRITING WHICH HELP ED HIM REACH A CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CONDON ATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(E), WE ARE CONSTRAINED IN DECIDING THE MATTER AND DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT TH E MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(E) TO EXAMINE AND EXPEDIT IOUSLY ADJUDICATE THE MATTER RELATING TO DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28/04/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28/04/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 77/JP/2020 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT(E) 11 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- CIT (E), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 77/JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR