AMATEUR RIDERS' CLUB, MUMBAI V. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 877/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1794 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BRAJENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption; Cancellation of registration; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 12A; 250; 143(2); 13; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 877/MUM/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 ) AMATEUR RIDERS CLUB MAHALAXMI RACE COURSE, MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI 400 034 / VS. ITO (EXEMPTION) 1(1) PIRMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG, MUMBAI 400 012. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAATA6630L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEERAJ SHETH, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BRAJENDRA KUMAR, DR / DATE OF HEARING 03/11/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/11/2020 / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -1, MUMBAI PASSED U/S. 143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. RE.: NON GRANTING OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11 ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 2 - 1.1 THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO OF NOT GRANTING THE APPELLANT EXEMPTION U/S.11 O F THE IT ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 1.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CONSIDERING THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE AND THE LAW PREVAILIN G ON THE SUBJECT, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO AN EXEMPT ION IN TERMS OF THE SECTION 11 AND THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAV E HELD AS SUCH. 1.3 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO GRANT THE APPELLANT EXEMPTION U/S.11 AND TO RE-COMP UTE ITS TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING AND IN THE ALTE RNATIVE: 2.0 RE; COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY INCORRECT APPLICA TION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY; 2.0 THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE A.O TO COMPUTE THE APPELLANTS INCOME BY CORRECTLY APPLYIN G THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. 3.0 RE.: GENERAL; 3.1 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D, SUBSTITUTE AND / OR MODIFY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEF ORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A TRUST REGISTERED WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER OF MUMBAI AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2012 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS.NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 3 - 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE WERE ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS. THE LDA.O PERUSED THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE, BALANCE SHEET, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AUDIT REPORT. FURTHER AND ALSO FIND THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT WITH THE DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI HAS BEEN CANCELLED BY DIT(E) MUMBAI ORDER DATED 08.12.2011W.E.F A.Y. 2009-10. THE A.O DEALT ON THE MAIN OBJECTS AND RULES AT POIN T NO3(A) AND 3(B) OF THE DEED AND MATERIAL FACTS AND OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN THE NOR MAL COURSE ARE TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS PER AMENDED PROVISO TO SEC. 2(15) R.W.S 13(8) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS AND THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT WAS REVOKED W.E.F A.Y 2009-10. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF TH E ACT AND THE INCOME HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS PER THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS VIDE LE TTER DATED 24.02.2014 REFERRED AT PARA 5.2 OF THE ORDER. THE A.O CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE FACTS I S ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 4 - OF THE VIEW THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE AC T WAS CANCELLED ON 08.12.2011 AND TRUST HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(15) BASED ON TH E MUTUALITY CONCEPT. FURTHER THE A.O ALSO OBSERVED THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING HOTELS, PERMIT ROOMS AND RECEIPT OF HIRE CHARGES FROM MARRIAGE CEREMONIE S AND THE ANCILLARY OBJECTS. THE A.O HAS DEALT AT PA RA 5.3 OF THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE CLUB IS NOT OPEN TO GENERAL PUBLI C. ENTRY INTO THE CLUB IS ALSO DIFFICULT FOR ORDINARY PEOPLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. THE A.O CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE MEMBERSHIPS ALLOTTED TO THE PUBLIC AND OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE COLLECTING MEMBERSHIP FEES AND SUBSCRIPTION FEES DEPENDING ON THE CATEGORY OF MEMBERS AND GETTING MEMBERSHIP INTO THE CLUB IS A VERY DIFFICULT TASK. THE A.O DEALT ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT AND OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE TRUST CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CHARITABL E AND MADE THE COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(15) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,75,92,900/- AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 21.03.2015. ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 5 - 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A N APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, FINDINGS OF THE AO, AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION U/SEC12A BY THE DIT(E) WAS CHALLENGED AND THE HONBLE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CANCELLATIO N. WHEREAS THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACT OF REGISTRATION AND DEALT ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS A ND THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 AND FURTHER RELIED ON THE PREDECESSOR ORDER AND ACCEPT ED THE VIEW OF THE A.O ON DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/SEC11 OF THE ACT AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACTS, PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE I TAT. WHERE AS THE HONBLE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE CANCELLATION ORDER OF REGISTRATION U/SEC12A OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ONLY ISSUE AGITATED BEING , GRANTING OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION FROM THE YEAR 1974 ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 6 - ONWARDS AND WAS WITHDRAWN AND CANCELLED BY THE DIT(E) VIDE ORDER DATED 08.12.2011.THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O HAS OVERLOOKED THE PROVISION S OF LAW AND DEALT ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF CBDT CIRCULAR, WHERE THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION HAS TO BE GRANTED TO THE INSTITUTIONS BOTH MUTUAL AND CHARITABLE. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, THE A.O HAS N OT FOLLOWED THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR EMPHASIZED THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND THE HONBLE ITAT FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 AND 2011-12 HAS SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION OF SEC11 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SUBSTANTIATED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND PAPER BOOK AND PRAYED F OR ALLOWING THE APPEAL. 5. CONTRA, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD CIT(A). 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SOLE MATRIX OF THE DISPUTE D ISSUE IN RESPECT OF THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTIVITIES ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE THEREFORE THE ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 7 - EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED. THE LD. AR EMPHASIZED THAT THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION U/SEC12A BY THE DIT(E) WAS CHALLENGED AND THE HONBLE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CANCELLATIO N. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF REGISTRATION 12A OF THE ACT ARE EFFECTIVELY APPLICA BLE FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT CONSIDERIN G THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THA T THE EARLIER YEAR FACTS ARE DIFFERENT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD . AR DEMONSTRATED THE PAPER BOOK REFERRING TO THE ORD ER OF REJECTION DATED 08.12.2011 AT PAGE 93 TO 99 CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION U/ 12AOF THE ACT EFFECT IVE FROM A.Y 2009-10 AND AT PAGE100 TO 107, ON APPEAL TO HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 324/MUM/2012 ORDER DT 3- 3-2016.THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE ACTION OF THE DIT(E) IN CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION IS BAD IN LAW. WE CONSIDER IT APPROPR IATE TO REFER THE OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE ITAT AT PAGE 7 PARA 8 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE LD. DR APPEARIN G ON BEHALF OF DIT HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY EVIDE NCE TO SHOW OR PROVE THAT THESE ACTIVITIES BEING CARRIED O UT BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS IN VIOLATION OF THE OBJECT OF TRUST. LD. DR FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY PROVISION OR ANY RUL ES AND REGULATIONS OF ASSESSEE TRUST BEING VIOLATED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND FURTHER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HW AND IN WHAT MANNER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE T RUST ARE NOT GENUINE. LD. DR ONLY RELIED UPON THE TRIBU NAL ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 8 - ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE NAVI MUMBAI MERCHANTS GYMKHANA (66 SOT 121) VS. ADIT47 TAXMANN. COM 53 (MUMBAI-TRI). THEREFORE AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTA LITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE D IT EXEMPTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BECOME NON GENUINE ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR FOUNDATIONS THEREFORE, WE HOLD THE CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. 2009-10 IS BAD IN LAW AND THE S AME IS SET ASIDE, AND THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. FURTHER, THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO. 48/MUM/2013 &195/MUM/2013 FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 AND ITA 5610/MUM/2015 FOR THE 2011-12 DATED 13.01.2020. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DENYING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 AND A.Y 2011- 12. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE EARLIER ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 03.03.2016 SETT ING ASIDE THE ORDER OF DIT(E) AND RESTORATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE TRIBU NAL OBSERVED THAT THE CIT(A) IN THE APPEALS FOR AY 2009 - 10 AND AY 2011-12 UPHELD THE REJECTION OF EXEMPTION U/S11 OF THE ACT DUE TO CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIO N GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT BY DIT(E) VIDE ORDER DAT ED 08.12.2011. ON APPEAL TO THE HONBLE ITAT THE ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 9 - TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER LD. DIT(E) AND RESTORED THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE AC T WITH SPECIFIC OBSERVATION THAT THERE IS NO PROPER REASONING AND THE BASIS OF LD. DIT(E) IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THE LDCIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2011-12 HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME REASONING AND DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/SEC11 OF THE ACT. BUT THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESTORED WITH THE REGISTRATIO N U/SEC 12A OF THE ACT AND IT WAS VERY MUCH BEFORE TH E APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL A T PAGE 9 PARA 8 OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS READ AS UNDER: 8. ON A CAREFUL READING OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FR OM LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)S ORDER, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE ONLY REASONING ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SHE HAS UPHELD THE REJECTION OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXE MPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS DUE TO WITHDRAWAL /CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED 8TH DECEMBER 2011. NOTABL Y, AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LEARNED DIT (EXEMP.) CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1 2A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL AND T HE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ITA NO.324/MUM./2012, DATED 3RD MARCH 2016, SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF LEARNED DIT (EXEMP.) AND RESTORED THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE, THE REASONING ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 10 - LEARNED DIT (EXEMP.) WITHDREW/CANCELLED ASSESSEES REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, WERE ADO PTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE REJECTING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IN THE IMP UGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDI NG THE ISSUE HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT NOTHING HAS B EEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW OR TO PROVE THAT THE ACTI VITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN VIOLATION OF ITS OBJECTS. BE THAT AS IT MAY, AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THE ONLY RE ASONING ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS DUE TO WITHDRAWAL/CANCELLATION OF ASSESSEES REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, AFTER RESTORATION OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT B Y VIRTUE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS REFE RRED TO ABOVE, THE REASONING OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) IN REJECTING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 11 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE UPHELD. IT IS RELEVANT TO O BSERVE, IN CASE OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE, VIZ. COTTON TEXTILE PR OMOTION COUNCIL, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD UPHELD REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT ON IDENTICAL REASONING FOR THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IN ITA NO.317/ MUM./2013, DATED 28TH JANUARY 2015, THE TRIBUNAL HAVING TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT H AS BEEN RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL, ALLOWED ASSESSEES C LAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH, THE REVENUE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.1250/2015, HOWEVER, IN ORDER DATED 29TH NOVEMBER 2017, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 11 - IDENTICAL AS THE ONLY REASONING ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE REJEC TION OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS DUE TO CANCELLATION OF ASSESSEES REGISTRATION UNDER SECTI ON 12A OF THE ACT. ONCE THE CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION H AS BEEN SET ASIDE AND REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12 A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)S DECISION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT BECOMES REDUNDANT, HENCE, HAS TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) AND ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U NDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOV E, WE DO NOT INTEND TO DELIBERATE FURTHER ON VARIOUS OTHER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEANED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFYING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 11 OF THE ACT. 8. WE CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND RESTORATION OF REGISTRATION U/SEC12A OF THE ACT BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE YEAR 2016 ARE OF THE VI EW THAT AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FO R THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION IN THE YEAR 2016 AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED FOR TH E PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.03.2015. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL VI EW THAT THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RESTORATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT IS NOT A ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 12 - VALID ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2011-12 THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 48/MUM/2013 AND ITA NO. 5610/MUM/2015 HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REJECTING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE QUERY WAS RAISED TO THE LD. AR IN RESPECT OF TH E PASSING OF ANY ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE HONBLE I TAT ORDER DATED 31.01.2020. THE LD. AR EXPRESSED THAT NO ACTION WAS INITIATED ON ORDER GIVING EFFECT (OGE ) BY THE A.O AND IS IN THE PROCESS. THE LD. DR ALSO COUL D NOT GIVE THE CORRECT POSITION OF THE ORDER GIVING E FFECT (OGE) OF THE HONBLE ITAT ORDER. WE CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF A.O TO CONSIDER THE RESTORATION OF REGISTRATIO N GRANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR 2016 AND TH E ORDER GIVING EFFECT (OGE) FOR THE A.Y 2009-10 AND 2011-12 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. ACCORDINGLY TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN ASSESSEES APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIO NS AND THE A.O HAS TO VERIFY AND EXAMINE THE FACTS AND DO THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE RESTORATION OF ITA NO .877 /MUM/2017 AMATEUR RIDERS., MUMBAI. - 13 - REGISTRATION UNDER 12A OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.11.2020 SD/- SD/- (M BALAGANESH) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED /11/2020 KRK, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ) ( ) / CONCERNED CIT 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// 1. / ( ASST. REGISTRAR) !' #, / ITAT, MUMBAI