Kerala Industrial Revitalisation Fund Board, Trivandrum V. ACIt, Trivandrum

ITA 81/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2580 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PREETA S NAIR
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.81/COCH/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T.A NO. 81/COCH/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01) KERALA INDUSTRIAL REVITALISATION VS A.C.I.T., CIR. 1(2) FUND BOARD, 5 TH FLOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CMD BLDG, C.V. RAMAN PILLAI ROAD THYCAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PAN : AAALK0056E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PREETA S NAIR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M ANIL KUMAR, C.I.T./ SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE DATE OF HEARING : 06-06-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-07-2013 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, TRIVANDRUM DATED 05-10-2010 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2 ITA NO.81/COCH/2011 2. WE HEARD SMT. PREETA S NAIR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. SUSAN GEORGE VARGHESE, THE LD.DR. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) O F THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO REGISTRATION EITHER U/S 12AA OR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT. REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE AT IS A PRECONDITION FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE A CT. SIMILARLY FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO GET NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BEING THE DESIGNATED COMPETENT AUTHORITY. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT WAS FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX I N THE YEAR 2000; HOWEVER, NO ORDER WAS PASSED. REFERRING TO SIXTH P ROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UNLESS THE APPLICATION WAS REJECTED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE APPROVAL WAS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SIXTH PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT. THIS SIXTH PROVISO WAS INTRODU CED IN THE STATUTE 3 ITA NO.81/COCH/2011 BOOK BY TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2006 WITH RE TROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01-04-2006. THE SIXTH PROVISO TO SECTI ON 10(23C) READS AS FOLLOWS: PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE AN APPLICATION UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO IS MADE ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT BILL, 2006 RECEIVES T HE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT, EVERY NOTIFICATION UNDER S UB- CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) SHALL BE ISSUED OR AP PROVED UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) OR SUB-CLAU SE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA) SHALL BE GRANTED OR AN ORDER RE JECTING THE APPLICATION SHALL BE PASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD O F TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED. A BARE READING OF THIS PROVISO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT I T IS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER FIRST PROVISO ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT BILL, 20 06 RECEIVES THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT. IN THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHEELA CHRISTIAN CHARIT ABLE TRUST 354 ITR 478 (MAD), WHILE CONSIDERING SIMILAR PROVISION IN S ECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE REGISTRATION WAS DEEMED TO BE GRANTED. IF AN APPLICATION WAS NOT DI SPOSED OF BY A 4 ITA NO.81/COCH/2011 STATUTORY AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE TAKEN REMEDIAL MEASURES BY MOVING THE COMPETENT COURT. UNFORTUNAT ELY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY SUCH STEP. THEREFORE, T HERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION THAT APPROVAL U/S 10(23C) WAS GRANT ED ON THE APPLICATION SAID TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2000. 5. DELAY IN PASSING ORDER OR AVOIDING TO PASS AN OR DER ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE CITIZENS IS ONE OF THE ADM INISTRATIVE HASSLES FACED BY THE CITIZENS. PROBABLY, BY KEEPING THIS I N MIND, THE PARLIAMENT MIGHT HAVE INTRODUCED SIXTH PROVISO TO S ECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT. THE SIXTH PROVISO BROUGHT INTO THE STATUT E BOOK WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2006 HAS NOT PROVIDED FOR DEEMED APPROVA L ON EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS PERIOD, AS HELD BY THE MADRAS HIGH COUR T. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION EITHER U/S 11 OR U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST JULY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 31 ST JULY, 2013 PK/- 5 ITA NO.81/COCH/2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C OCHIN BENCH