Punjab State E-Governance Society, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 87/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6399 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH CIT DR
• Assessee Lawyers: Y K SUD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 147; 148; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CH B, CHANDIGARH .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM ITA NO. 87/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 PUNJAB STATE E - GOVERNANCE SOCIETY SCO 193-95, SECTOR 34 CHANDIGARH THE ITO WARD (EXEMPTION) CHANDIGARH PAN NO: AAATP9562E APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. Y.K. SUD, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI. MANJIT SINGH, CIT DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 11/07/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/07/2019 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 17/10/2016 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, CHANDIGARH. 2. FOLLOWING REVISED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN TH IS APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ABOVESAID APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ON 09.01.2017 AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL ARE DESCR IPTIVE AND VAGUE. IT IS THEREFORE MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY BE CONSIDERED AS REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL: A. THAT CTT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE PROCEEDING U/S 147/148 INITIATED BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL. B. THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE AO OF NOT ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIS ALLOWED BY THE AO. C. THAT THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) AND AO ARE AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. VIDE GROUND NO. 1(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED ON 06/03/2003 WITH THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS & SOCIETIES . THE ASSESEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 01/10/2010, SHOWING NIL INCOME. THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31/10 /2013, ACCEPTING THE NIL INCOME. LATER ON THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSE SSEES CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2006- 2 07 THE ITAT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGISTER ED WITH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, HOWEVER IF IT IS FOUND SUBSEQUENTLY THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE CASE MAY BE ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, TO THE CIT-2, CHANDIGARH WHO VIDE HIS ORDER DT. 30/12/2013 HAD NO T GRANTED THE REGISTRATION. HE THEREFORE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 1,46,91,272/- OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS. 11,78,4 16/- HAD BEEN APPLIED AND AS PER DECLARATION IN FORM NO. 10 A SUM OF RS. 1,35,12 ,586/- WAS SET APART/ACCUMULATED TILL 31/03/2010. THE A.O. HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, HE THEREFORE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,35,12,586/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 'THE APPELLANT IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED ON 06.03.200 3 UNDER SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT. 1860. IT HAS BEEN SET UP TO ADMINISTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF E GOVERNANCE PROJECTS FOR THE OVERALL BENEFITS OF THE CITIZEN AND PUBLIC BY SETTING UP TH E NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE, FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND TECHNICAL FRAME WORK. IMPLEMENTATION MECH ANISM & RESOURCES IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB AT THE STATE LEVEL UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSM ENT ORDERS FOR A. Y. 2006-07 MADE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE STRUCK DOWN BY CIT (APPEAL). F URTHER ORDERS OF CIT (APPEAL) WERE CONFIRMED BY THE IT AT (TRIBUNAL), CHANDIGARH IN AP PEAL NO. 681 OF 2009 (COPY ENCLOSED). WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDERS IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MEN TIONED THAT THE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED WITH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 12AA OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS WORTH TO MENTION HERE THAT WHILE SEARCHING RECORD BY MY PRED ECESSORS FOR TRACING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. IT COULD NOT BE LOCATED. IN SPITE OF CONSISTENT BEST EFFORTS BY THE OFFICE THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE COULD NOT BE TRACED TILL TODAY. ON THE ILL ADVICE OF THE COUNSEL, THE SOCIET Y APPLIED A FRESH ON 23.07.2013 FOR OBTAINING THE SAME FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE REQUEST WAS TURNED DOWN ON FILMSY GROUNDS ON 30.12.2013.' 6. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. MADE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31/10/2013 AT NIL INCOME UNDER THE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER S UBSEQUENTLY WHEN IT CAME TO HIS NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, HE MADE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ASSESSEE AS AN UNREGI STERED SOCIETY AND THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED CERTIFI CATE UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WAS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO FURNISH THE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, IT HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION BEFORE THE CIT-2 CHANDIGARH WHO HA D NOT GRANTED THE REGISTRATION AND REJECTED THE APPLICATION VIDE ORDE R DT. 30/12/2013. THEREFORE, 3 THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY REASSESSED THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS AN UNREGISTERED SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS UPHELD. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED THE GROUN DS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD FOR FILING THE OBJECTION TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED WER E NOT GIVEN TIMELY AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN REOPENED ON WRONG FAC TS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AS UNDER: ' IN THE PRESENT CASE APPELLANT HAS FILED INCOME TA X RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 ON 01.10.2011. THE RETURN WAS ACCEPTED AND ASSES SED BY THEN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT ON 31.10.2013. SUB SEQUENTLY A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 CLAIMING INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE M EANING OF SECTION 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED ON 21.05.2014 UNDER SEC. 142(1). THE NOTICE WAS REPLIED ON 28.05.2014 AS UNDER:- A) YOUR GOODSELF IS REQUESTED TO CONSTRUE THE RETURN O F INCOME FILED UNDER SEC 139( 1) AS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT. B) YOUR GOODSELF IS ALSO REQUESTED TO PROVIDE US WITH THE REASONS RECORDED FOR PURPOSE OF RE-OPENING THE CASE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT . HOWEVER THE REASONS SO RECORDED WERE NOT SUPPLIED A T ALL THE APPELLANT WAS SUMMONED ON 25.03.2015. THE APPELLANT APPEARED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ALO NGWITH COUNSEL ON 25.03.2015 & DRAWN HIS ATTENTION FOR PROVIDING THE REASONS SO RE CORDED FOR RE-OPENING ASSESSMENT IN VIEW OF HIS REQUEST DATED 28.05.2014. THEN PHOTOCOP Y OF ORDERS DATED 28.01.2014 CONTAINING REASONS PASSED BY DCIT ON 28.01.2014 TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS SUPPLIED ON 25.03.2015. THE REASONS SO CONVEYED WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED BY T HE OFFICE OF APPELLANT. THE SAME WAS GOT CONFIRMED BY APPELLANT THROUGH LETTER DATED 27.03.2015. 1. THUS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE R EASON SO RECORDED PROPERLY FOR RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQU EST. THUS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS BEEN DENIED OR HIS RIGHT TO REPRESENT AGAINST T HE REASONS SO RECORDED HAS BEEN INFRINGED. 2. THE HON'BLE IT AT WHILE DISPOSING CASE NO 681 OF 20 09 NOWHERE IT HAS MENTIONED OR AUTHORIZED DEPARTMENT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAS KNOWINGLY RECORDED WRONG REASONS FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMEN T. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER 'HOWEVER, IN FUTURE IF IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE DO ES NOT HAVE REGISTRATION THE CASE MAY BE RE-ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. 3. FURTHER THE POWER OF RE-OPEN ASSESSMENT OR RE-AS SESS INCOME UNDER THIS SECTION IS NOT A POWER TO REVIEW (CIT, DELHI V S. KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. [2002] 256 ITR 1). IN THIS CASE HON'BLE SC HAS HELD THAT IN RE-ASSESSMENT CASE ENTIRE INCOME IS RE-EXAMINED AND ASSESSMENT PR OCESS IS CONDUCTED A FRESH, WHILE POWER TO REVIEW INVOLVES REVISION OF DECISION AFTER THE ASSESSMENT. AS PER ABOVE THE RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN COUNTING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS USUAL SINCE LONG. MORE SO IT HAS ADMITTED BEFORE CIT (APPEAL) AS WELL AS BEFORE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ABOVE REFERRE D CASE {APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2009}, THAT APPELLANT IS REGISTERED UNDER SEC 12AA. THE ADMISSI ON HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS BEST EVIDENCE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THEREBY RE-OPENING OF A SSESSMENT JUST TO REVIEW ITS OLD DECISION IS BAD IN LAW. THE RESPONDENT ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNJUST/UNLA WFUL ORDERS DATED 30.03.2015 UNDER SEC 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ON 06.04.2015, WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS FAR OBJECTIONS TO THE REOPENING OF CASE ARE CONCERNED.' 6.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON WRONG FACTS IS TOTALLY DEVOID OF MERITS. THE RE-ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT ITSELF FAILED TO PRO DUCE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE U/S 12AA BEFORE THE A.O AND AS THE SOCIETY WAS NOT REGISTERE D APPELLANT APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION 4 BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHICH WAS DECLIN ED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2013. THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INITIATED R E-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AFTER RECORDING REASONS THAT THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY TREATING IT AS A SOCIETY REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE APPEL LANT'S RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALVINATOR INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) IS MISPLACED AS ON THE FACTS, THIS CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE INFORMATION THAT SOCIETY IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA WAS NOT AVA ILABLE WITH THE A.O AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN A.O CAME TO KNOW T HAT THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS A REGISTERED SOCIETY IS ACTUALLY NOT HAVING CERT IFICATE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA SOUGHT TO INITIATE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND THEREFOR E IT CANNOT BE SAID AS A REVIEW OR REVISION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA EVEN DURING APPEAL PROCEEDING S. ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS AND THE REASONS WERE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVE R, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED ON 28.05.2014 THAT THE RETURN FILED U/S 1 39(1) BE TREATED AS A RETURN OF INCOME IS RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 AND REQUESTED TO SUPPLY THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED U/S 148 BUT THE A.O IN THIS CASE HAS GIVEN THE COPY OF REAS ONS TO THE ASSESSEE ON 25.03.2015 WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE REASONABLE TIME TO FILE THE OBJE CTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 30.03.2015, THE ASSESSE E COULD HAVE FILED THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT WHICH WAS NOT DONE. EVEN OTHERWISE NOW DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AND THEREFORE, IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3 AND 4 ARE DISMISSED. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E REOPENING DONE BY THE A.O. WAS ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION, SO IT W AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE FACTS WERE ALREADY A VAILABLE WITH THE A.O. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND THE HE WAS FULLY SATISFIED AT THE TIME OF FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECT ION 12AA OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ALSO THE A.O. ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE A CT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MISPLACED THE CERTIFICATES UNDER SECTI ON 12AA OF THE ACT, THEREFORE HAD APPLIED FOR FRESH REGISTRATION TO THE LD.CIT WH O REJECTED THE SAME VIDE ORDER DT. 30/12/2013 AND THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. CIT BEFORE THE ITAT WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DT. 31/03/2015 IN ITA NO. 1 98/CHD/2014 THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT FOR RECONSIDERATION. IT WA S POINTED OUT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE REGISTRATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, THEREFORE WHEN THE A.O. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DT. 31/01/2013 WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVI NG THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THEN SUBSEQUENTLY THE REOP ENING ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECT ION 12AA OF THE ACT WAS A CHANGE OF OPINION PARTICULARLY WHEN NOTHING WAS BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE REGISTRATION EARLIER GRANTED UN DER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WAS CANCELLED. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS P AGE NO. 15 TO 17 OF THE 5 ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE ORDE R OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DT. 21/04/2011 IN ITA NO. 75 OF 2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS DISMISSED AND IT WAS O BSERVED IN PARA 2 OF THE SAID ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AND WAS ALSO REGISTERED UNDE R SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. HE THEREFORE SUBMIT TED THAT ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION THE REOPENING WAS NOT VALID. RELI ANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. ANIL NAGPAL (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H), COPY OF THE SAID O RDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 9. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT VIDE ORDER DT. 30/12/2013 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, OTH ERWISE THERE WAS NO NEED TO FILE THE APPLICATION AGAIN FOR THE REGISTRATION THE REFORE THE A.O. WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF TH E ACT, AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE A.O. WHILE FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 31/01/2013 ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, HE OBSER VED IN THE SAID ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A COPY OF ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 WHEREIN THE ITAT HAD MENTIONED THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED WITH THE CIT UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE A CT. HOWEVER LATER ON THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RECORDING THE FOLLOWING REASONS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 20 10-11 DECLARING NIL INCOME ON 01/10/2010. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, AN INCOME OF R S. 1,09,60,106/- HAD BEEN SHOWN AND CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH . SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) DATED 31/01/2013 AT N IL INCOME. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE OFF ICE NOTE AS UNDER: THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY FOLLOWING CRIT ERIA LAID DOWN AS PER CLAUSE-H OF THE SCRUTINY GUIDELINES FOR 2011-12 ISSUED BY THE BOARD VIDE F. NO. 225/127/2011/ITA-II DATED 02- 09-2011. DURING SCRUTINY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNI SHED COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12AA BUT STATED THAT IT HAS BEEN GRANTE D REGISTRATION AND NO CERTIFICATE IS AVAILABLE WITH IT AT PRESENT. THE HON'BLE ITAT IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006-07 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX U/S. 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER , IF IN FUTURE IT IS 6 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA THE CASE MAY BE REASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 1 2A BEFORE THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II, CHANDIGARH. THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II, CHANDIGARH VIDE ORDER U/S. 12AA DATED 30/12/2013 HAS NOT GRANTED TH E REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE TRUST APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED THE CASE NEEDS TO BE RE-ASSESSED. 3. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST R ECEIVED GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 1,46,91,272/- FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 200 9-10. OUT OF THIS, ONLY A SUM OF RS. 11,78,416/- HAS BEEN APPLIED AND A DECLARATION IN F ORM 10 WAS SUBMITTED STATING THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,35,12,586/- IS SET APART / ACCUMULATED TILL THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING 31/03/2010. 4. FURTHERMORE THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT APPLIED THE INCOME TO SET APART/ACCUMULATED WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD AS PER F ORM 10(I.E. UP TO 31/03/2010). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, I HAVE REASON TO BELI EVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE. ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148. 10.1 IN THE ABOVE SAID REASONS, IT HAS BEEN MENTION ED THAT THE LD. CIT-II, CHANDIGARH DID NOT GRANT THE REGISTRATION TO THE AS SESSEE VIDE ORDER DT. 30/12/2013. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT-II WAS SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE LD. CIT FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION VIDE ORDER DT. 31/03/2015 IN ITA NO. 198/CHD/2014 WITH DIRECTI ON TO THE LD. CIT TO RE-DECIDE REGISTRATION APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PASS A DETAILED SPEAKING ORDER BY GIVING REASONABLE / SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE, DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS ALSO STATED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE ORIGINAL C ERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WAS MISPLACED, HOWEVER, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04/08/2010 IN ITA NO. 681/CHD/2009 IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING FACT WAS MENTIO NED: THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED ON 06/03/2003 UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 18 60 AND IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX U/S 12AA OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING NOTE OF THE SAID OB SERVATION OF THE ITAT HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/ S 11 OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT NIL. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD WENT INTO APPEAL BEFORE THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE ITAT RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN ITA NO. 75/CHD/2011 ORDER DATED 21.04/2011 WHILE NARRATING THE FACTS HAS MENTIONED AS UNDER:- 7 '2. THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AND IS ALSO REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. ITS OBJECT IS TO PROMOTE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF E-GOVERNANCE USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE ST ATE OF PUNJAB. ' 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE HAS TAKEN NO TE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION AFRESH AN D ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER NOT HAVING ANY REGISTRATION U/ S 12A OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR REGISTRAT ION U/S 12A OF THE ACT WAS MISPLACED, HENCE, THE REGISTRATION WAS APPLIED FOR, AFRESH. 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REGISTERED U/S 12A WITH THE D EPARTMENT, THE REGISTER IN WHICH THE NAMES OF THE CHARITABLE INSTI TUTION ARE ENTERED LIES WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT OR NOT, COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT / FROM THE REGISTER CONTAI NING THE ENTRIES OF REGISTRATION AND FROM OTHER RELEVANT RECORD. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VERIFIED THE SAID FACTS FROM THE RECORD NOR THE SAID RECORD HAS BEEN VERIFIED BEFORE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THUS, NO TANGIBLE INFORMATION HAD COME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THEREFORE, MERELY ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATIO N AFRESH SUBSEQUENTLY MAY ARISE A SUSPICION OR DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF THE MERE SUSPICION OR DOUBT, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE HE LD TO BE JUSTIFIED, ESPECIALLY WHEN, THE SAID DOUBT COULD HAVE BEEN CLA RIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONSULTING/ VERIFYING FROM THE DEPARTMEN TS RECORD. 14. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. ANIL NAGPAL (2017) 291 CTR 272 (P&H) HELD AS UN DER: INDEED, IF A QUERY IS RAISED BY THE AO AND IS ANSW ERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT HIS ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SAME AND THAT HE IN FACT CONSIDERED THE SAME. IF TH E RETURN IS ACCEPTED AS FILED IN THAT REGARD, IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT HE ACCEPTED THE SAME. IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT AN AO WHO RAISES A QUERY WOULD FOCUS HIS ATTENTION ON THE ANSWER FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. A VIEW TO THE CONTRARY WOULD BE DOING THE AO LITTLE CREDIT. THE A O RAISED QUERIES AND SOUGHT INFORMATION/DOCUMENT(S) WHICH WERE ADMITTEDLY SUPPL IED. IT IS NOW ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME MATERIAL THAT THE CASE IS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENE D WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2012) 253 CTR (DEL)(FB) 11 3 : (2012) 77 DTR, (DEL)(FB) 396 : (2012) 348 ITR 485 (DEL)(FB) CONCURRED WITH. 8 15. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MADE M ERELY ON ASSUMPTION AND WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT FACT AND W ITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE INFORMATION COMING INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT, THE REOPENIN G CANNOT BE HELD TO BE VALID IN THIS CASE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/07/2019 ) SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 31/07/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE