Tamilnadu State Apex Co-operative Bank Employees Provident Fund, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 915/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6339 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN JTD
• Assessee Lawyers: R SANKARANARAYAN
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A/SMC, CHENNAI , ! BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.915/MDS/2017 ' # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, NEW NO.4, OLD NO.233, NSC BOSE ROAD, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI 600 001. [PAN: AABTT 4844J] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-12(3), CHENNAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.SANKARANARAYAN, CA *+&' ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.SAGADEVAN, JTD. CIT , $ ( - / DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2017 .% ( - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2017 /O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 27.03.2017, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREI NAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2013-14 VIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2016 . 2. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THE A DMISSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEES, A TRUST, CLAIMED AS CONSTITUTED UNDER THE INDIAN TR UST ACT, 1860, BY THE TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (ALSO REFERR ED TO AS THE EMPLOYER- 2 ITA NO. 915/MDS/2017 (AY 2013-14) TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLO YEES PROVIDENT FUND V. ITO BANK) FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS EMPLOYEES, CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(25) OF THE ACT, THE RELEVANT PART OF WHICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW, ON ITS INCOME: CHAPTER III INCOMES WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME INCOMES NOT INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME. SECTION 10(1) TO 24 . 10(25)(I).. (II) ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEES ON BEHALF OF A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND; THE SAME IS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND. THE MOOT QUESTION THUS IS IF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE RE GARDED AS A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND, WHICH IS DEFINED U/S. 2(38) OF THE ACT, REPRODUCED AS UNDER: DEFINITIONS. SEC.2(38) RECOGNISED PROVIDENT FUND MEANS A PROVIDENT FUND WHICH HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE RECOGNISED BY THE CHIEF CO MMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES CONTAINED IN PART A OF THE FOURTH SCHEDULE, AND INCLUDES A PROVIDENT FUND ESTA BLISHED UNDER A SCHEME FRAMED UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ACT, 19 52 (19 OF 1952); PART A OF SCHEDULE IV TO THE ACT CONTAINS PROVISION S IN RELATION TO RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUNDS. IT REPRESENTS A CODE, B EGINNING WITH RULE 1 QUA THE SCOPE OF THE SAID PART, TO RULE 15, CONCERNING VARI OUS ASPECTS OF A PROVIDENT FUND MAINTAINED BY AN EMPLOYER FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS E MPLOYEES, VIZ. THE CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED FOR IT TO BE RECOGNIZED UNDER THE A CT; THE RELAXATION OF THOSE CONDITIONS; THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE EMPLOYER AS WELL AS THE BY THE EMPLOYEES; THE TAX ASPECTS THEREOF; THE TAX TREATME NT OF THE ACCUMULATED BALANCE IN THE FUND, ETC. THE BOARD (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIREC T TAXES OR CBDT FOR SHORT) HAS THE POWER TO FRAME RULES, INCLUDING QUA THE INVESTMENT OR DEPOSIT OF THE FUND MONIES. BESIDES, IT HAS ALSO THE POWER TO SPEC IFY FURTHER CONDITIONS, I.E., APART FROM THAT CONTAINED IN R. 4 OF THE SAID SCHED ULE (PART A), FOR ACCORDING RECOGNITION, AS WELL AS TO REGULATE THE FUNCTIONING AND OTHER PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE FUND. PART XII OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (THE RULES HEREINAFTER) CONTAINS RULES FRAMED IN THIS REGARD, BEING R. 67 T O R. 81. 3 ITA NO. 915/MDS/2017 (AY 2013-14) TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLO YEES PROVIDENT FUND V. ITO PARA 2.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINS THE FINDI NGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), AND READS AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF SUB-RULE 5 OF RULE 78 AND SEC. 2(38) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHERE THE RECOGNITION OF THE PROVIDENT FUND SHOULD BE CONTINUED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO APPLY FOR RE- RECOGNITION ONLY WHEN POINTED OUT DURING THE SCRUT INY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2013-14 . ALSO THE CONCEPT OF 'RE-RECOGNITION' AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATION IS NOT THERE IN INCOME TAX ACT AND RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 AND RULES 1962 MENTIONED ABOVE TO AVAIL THE EXEMPTI ON U/S. 10(25). AS THE RECOGNITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN QUESTION FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14, THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(25) IS REJECTED. THE OPERATING PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER READS AS U NDER: ( AT PGS.18- 19 ) AS PER THE STATUTE PROVISION SEC. 2(38) THE RECOGN ISED PROVIDENT FUND MEANS PROVIDENT FUND WHICH HAS BEEN AND CONTIN UES TO BE A RECOGNISED BY THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PR. COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES CONTAINED IN PART A OF THE FO URTH SCHEDULE, AND INCLUDES A PROVIDENT FUND ESTABLISHED UNDER A SCHEME FRAMED UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AC T, 1952(19 OF 1952). THUS, IT BECOMES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-RULE (5 ) OF 78 IT RULES, 1962 AND SEC. 2(38) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE ASSESS EE'S CLAIM THAT ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED RE-RECOGNITION BEFORE THE PR. COMMISSIONER IS NOT COVERED BY THE STATUTE PROVISION AS RE-RECOGNIT ION WORD IS NOT THE IN THE IT RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 10(25) OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE U/S. 17(1)( A) OF THE PROVIDENT FUND REGULATION. HOWEVER, WHEN THE AO ASK S SUCH PROOF TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY FURNISHED COMPLIANCE AUDIT REPORT OF THE PROVIDENT FUND DT.25 .10.2015 AND HAS NOT FURNISHED THE EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE U/S 17( 1) (A) OF THE PROVIDENT FUND REGULATION ACT, WHICH IS ISSUED BY PROVIDENT FUND AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO DISALLOWING SUM OF RS.12,00,070/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EX EMPT U/S 10(25) OF THE ACT FOR EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDI TURE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL THEREFORE IS DISMISSED . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4 ITA NO. 915/MDS/2017 (AY 2013-14) TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLO YEES PROVIDENT FUND V. ITO THE ASSESSEE TRUST, FORMED, AS STATED, PRIOR TO 19 44 AS MADRAS APEX CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, APP LIED FOR AND WAS ACCORDED RECOGNITION U/S. 58B(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 W.E.F. 30.09.1944 (PAPER- BOOK PG.1). A CHANGE IN ITS NAME TO ITS CURRENT NAM E, EFFECTED SUBSEQUENTLY, WAS DULY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MA DRAS VIDE HIS LETTER NO. 202(3)74 DATED 26.11.1974 (PB PG.3). THE ASSESSEE I S THUS CLEARLY A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND UNDER THE ACT. IN FACT, THIS ASPECT IS NOT IN DISPUTE, AND THE REVENUES CLAIM IS THAT IT IS, HOWEVER, NO LONGER S O, I.E., CANNOT CONTINUE TO BE A RECOGNIZED FUND AS THE CONDITIONS FOR THE SAME ARE NOT SATISFIED. FURTHER, THE EMPLOYER BANK BEING AN ESTABLISHMENT TO WHICH THE P ROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 19 52 (EPF & MP ACT HEREINAFTER) APPLY, IT STANDS GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S . 17(1)(A) OF THE SAID ACT. THIS FACT STANDS CONFIRMED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUN D COMMISSIONER-II (EXEM) VIDE OF HIS LETTER NO.RO/CHN/C/EXEM/TN/4102/2016 DATED 29.11.2016 IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 07.11.2016, REFERRED TO THEREIN (PB PG. 4). THE OPERATING PART OF THE SAID LETTER READS AS UNDE R: AS PER THE AVAILABLE RECORDS, THE ESTABLISHMENT M/ S. TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HAS BEEN GRANTED EXEMPT ION UNDER SEC. 17(1)(A) OF THE EPF AND MP ACT 1952, WITH EFFECT FR OM 01.02.1966 VIDE ORDER NO.GO.MS.4814 DATED 15.12.1966 AND 212 DATED 29.7.1991. THE EMPLOYER-BANK HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING ANNUAL STATISTICAL INFORMATION ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EXEMPTED ESTABLISHMENT UNDER THE SAID ACT. ITS ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS, AS WELL AS OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND MAINTAINED BY IT, THE ASSESSEE, HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE AUDI T BY THE DESIGNATED AUDIT TEAM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT FROM TIME TO TIME. THE COMPLIANCE AUDIT REPORT DATED 25.03.2015 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 20 13-14 IS ON RECORD (PB PGS. 79-84). PARA I(8) OF THE SAID REPORT ALSO MENTIONS THE EMPLOYER-BANK TO BE AN EXEMPT ESTABLISHMENT U/S. 17(1)(A) OF THE SAID ACT. THIS REPORT WAS FURNISHED BOTH BEFORE THE ASSESSING AND THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHILE THE LETTER DATED 29.11.2016 (SUPRA) WAS PRODUCED ONLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE 5 ITA NO. 915/MDS/2017 (AY 2013-14) TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLO YEES PROVIDENT FUND V. ITO PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS IN VIEW OF THE AO EXPRESSING R ESERVATION IN RESPECT OF SEC. 17(1)(A) EXEMPTION IN HIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) OUG HT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE SAME AND SOUGHT ITS VERIFICATION; RATHER, IN VIEW OF THE DOUBTS EXPRESSED BY THE AO, OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR SOME EVIDENCE IN THE MATTE R FROM THE ASSESSEE, AS THE SAID LETTER, HIMSELF, EXERCISING HIS POWER U/R. 46A (4) OF THE RULES, AND VERIFY OR CAUSE TO VERIFY THE SAME, SO AS TO SATISFY HIMSELF IN THE MATTER. HE DOES NEITHER; RATHER, DOES NOT EVEN RECORD THE FURNISHING OF THE SAID EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM AND, ON THE CONTRARY, ENDORSES THE AOS FINDINGS IN THE MATTER EXPRESSING, AS AFORE- STATED, DOUBT WITH REGARD TO S. 17(A) EXEMPTION UND ER THE EPF & MP ACT TO THE EMPLOYER-BANK. I FIND NO REASON TO DOUBT THE SAME A ND, ACCORDINGLY, THE EMPLOYER-BANK IS TO BE REGARDED AS AN ESTABLISHMENT TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF EPF & MP ACT APPLY AND, FURTHER, AS EXEMPT U/S.17(1 )(A) OF THE SAID ACT, I.E., AT LEAST UP TO 29.11.2016. PROCEEDING, NEXT, TO EXAMINE THE SATISFACTION OR O THERWISE OF THE CONDITIONS OF S. 2(38) OF THE ACT, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND UNDER THE ACT. THIS IS, AS AFORE-SAI D, IN VIEW OF, FIRSTLY, ITS RECOGNITION UNDER THE 1922 ACT AND, FURTHER, OF HAV ING OBTAINED THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT FOR A CHANGE IN ITS NAME, SO THAT THE ONLY QUESTION IS IF IT CAN BE CONTINUED TO BE REGARDED A S SO. RULE 3 OF PART A OF SCHEDULE IV TO THE ACT IS TITLED ACCORDING AND WIT HDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION. THE FIRST PROVISO TO R. 3(1) STATES THAT WHERE RECOGNITION HAS BEEN ACCORDED TO ANY FUND ON OR BEFORE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2006 AND SUCH FUND DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITION SET OUT IN CLAUSE (EA) OF R. 4 , THE RECOGNITION OF SUCH FUND SHALL BE WITHDRAWN IF SUCH FUND DOES NOT SATISFY, ON OR BEFO RE THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2014, THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE SAID CLAUSE AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS WHICH THE BOARD MAY, BY RULES, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF. CO RRESPONDINGLY, R. 77(5) OF THE RULES PROVIDES, INTER ALIA , THAT A FUND WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED RECOGNITION ON OR BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 2006, SHALL MAKE A FRESH APPLICATION IN FORM 40C THROUGH THE AO REFERRED TO IN SUB R.(2) (OF R. 77). THE ASSESSE E FUND BEING ADMITTEDLY NOT A 6 ITA NO. 915/MDS/2017 (AY 2013-14) TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLO YEES PROVIDENT FUND V. ITO FUND OF AN ESTABLISHMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH A NOTI FICATION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT U/S. 16(2) OF THE EPF & MP A CT, SO AS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO R. 3(1) (SUPRA) PER THE SECOND PROVISO THERETO, MADE A FRESH APPLICATION IN FORM 40C ON 10 .02.2016 (PB PGS. 92-95). THIS IN FACT IS NOTED BOTH BY THE AO (AT PARA 2.1 O F HIS ORDER) AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TERMING THE SAME AS A RE-RECOGNITI ON, A CONCEPT ALIEN TO THE ACT AND THE RULES THERE-UNDER, AND DISREGARDING IT ON THAT BASIS. THE SAME IS COMPLETELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE. FIRSTLY, MERELY BECAUS E THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION IN FORM 40C, WHICH IT IS IN FACT OBLIGED TO U/R. 77(5), DOES NOT BY ITSELF IMPLY THAT THE CONDITIONS OF R. 4(EA) OF SCH. IV(A) TO THE ACT ARE NOT SATISFIED BY THE CONCERNED ESTABLISHMENT. T HE APPLICATION IN FORM 40C IS NOT ON THE ASSESSEES OWN VIOLATION BUT ONLY IN PUR SUANCE TO R. 77(5) OF THE RULES BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK BY THE IT (FIRST AMENDM ENT) RULES, 2007 W.E.F. 15.01.2007. THE SAME, AS SHALL BE APPARENT, HAS BEE N PROVIDED, APART FROM REGULARIZING AND BRINGING UNIFORMITY IN APPLICATION S FOR RECOGNITION OF PROVIDENT FUNDS, WITH THE PRIME PURPOSE OF ENSURING THE SATIS FACTION OF THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN R. 4 (EA) OF SCHEDULE IV(A), WHICH READS AS UNDER: CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED BY RECOGNISED PROVIDENT FUNDS. 4. IN ORDER THAT A PROVIDENT FUND MAY RECEIVE AND RET AIN RECOGNITION, IT SHALL, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 5, SATISFY THE CONDITIONS SET OUT BELOW AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS WHICH THE BOARD MAY, BY RULES, SPECIFY ( A ) TO ( E ) .. ( EA ) THE FUND SHALL BE A FUND OF AN ESTABLISHMENT TO W HICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 1 OF THE EMPLOYEES P ROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 (19 OF 1952) APP LY OR OF AN ESTABLISHMENT WHICH HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRA L PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 1 OF THE SAID ACT, AND SUCH ESTABLISHMENT SHALL OBTAIN EXEMPTION UNDER SEC TION 17 OF THE SAID ACT FROM THE OPERATION OF ALL OR ANY OF THE PROVISI ONS OF ANY SCHEME REFERRED TO IN THAT SECTION. (F) TO (H) ... THE ASSESSEE FUND WAS OBLIGED TO HAVE FURNISHED THE SAID FORM, WHICH IT DOES ONLY ON 10.02.2016. THE CONSEQUENCE OF NOT HAVING F URNISHED THE SAME IS THAT ITS RECOGNITION UNDER THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE WITH DRAWN. THIS, HOWEVER, IS SUBJECT 7 ITA NO. 915/MDS/2017 (AY 2013-14) TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLO YEES PROVIDENT FUND V. ITO TO THE RIDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FUND DOES NOT, AS AF ORESAID, SATISFY THE CONDITION/S SET OUT IN R. 4(EA), AS WELL AS THE OTHER CONDITION S THAT THE BOARD MAY, BY RULES, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF (REFER FIRST PROVISO TO R. 3(1)). THAT IS, THE WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION IS NOT AUTOMATIC UPON THE NON SUBMISSIO N OF FORM 40C, OR DELAYED SUBMISSION THEREOF, BUT IS SUBJECT TO THE NON-SATIS FACTION OF THE CONDITION/S OF R. 4(EA), FOR WHICH TIME UP TO 31/3/2014 IS ALLOWED. T HE SAID RULE PROVIDES THE CONDITION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, OF WHICH THE ASSESS EE IS THE FUND, OBTAINING EXEMPTION U/S. 17 OF THE EPF & MP ACT FROM THE OPER ATION OF ALL OR ANY OF THE SCHEMES REFERRED TO IN THAT SECTION. IT IS NOT CLEA R IF, NOR EVEN STATED AT ANY STAGE THAT, THE EXEMPTION U/S. 17(1)(A) AMOUNTS TO AN EXE MPTION REFERRED TO IN R. 4(EA) OF SCH. IV(A) TO THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WOULD, THERE FORE, HAVE TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE, I.E., SATISFY THE R EVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITION/S OF R. 4(EA) SUPRA, FOR IT TO BE CONTINUED TO BE RECOGNIZED UNDER THE ACT. I SAY SO AS NO OTHER COND ITION HAS BEEN STATED BY THE REVENUE TO BE NOT SATISFIED OR OTHERWISE BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD, SUBJECT TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE EX EMPTION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS TO THE EMPLOYER-BANK AS ENVISAGED IN R . 4(EA) FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, SATISFYING THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD, BE ALLOWED R ECOGNITION UNDER THE ACT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, EXEMPTION U/S. 10(25) OF THE ACT ON I TS INCOME. HOWEVER, AS SHALL BE NOTICED, R. 3(1) OF SCHEDULE IV(A) ITSELF ALLOWS TIME UP TO 31.03.2014 FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITION OF R. 4(EA): ACCORDING AND WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION. 3. (1) THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAY ACCO RD RECOGNITION TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND WHICH, IN HIS OPINION, SATISF IES THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN RULE 4 AND THE RULES MADE BY THE BOAR D IN THIS BEHALF, AND MAY, AT ANY TIME, WITHDRAW SUCH RECOGNITION IF, IN HIS OPINION, THE PROVIDENT FUND CONTRAVENES ANY OF THOSE CONDITIONS: PROVIDED THAT IN A CASE WHERE RECOGNITION HAS BEEN ACCORDED TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2006 AND SUCH PROVIDENT FUND DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN CLA USE (EA) OF RULE 4 , THE RECOGNITION TO SUCH FUND SHALL BE WITHDRAWN, IF SUC H FUND DOES NOT SATISFY, ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2014, THE CONDI TIONS SET OUT IN THE SAID 8 ITA NO. 915/MDS/2017 (AY 2013-14) TAMIL NADU STATE APEX CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLO YEES PROVIDENT FUND V. ITO CLAUSE AND ANY OTHER CONDITION WHICH THE BOARD MAY, BY RULES SPECIFY, IN THIS BEHALF. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ..... (EMPHASIS, SUPPLIED) AS SUCH, EVEN AS THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THE NON-SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITION/S OF R. 4(EA), EVEN ASSUMING SO, IN-AS-MU CH AS THERE IS NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE TOWARD THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FUND SHALL C ONTINUE TO THE REGARDED AS A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND UNDER THE ACT UP TO 31.03 .2014. THE PRODUCTION AFORE-STATED MAY THEREFORE ASSUME RELEVANCE ONLY FO R PERIODS SUBSEQUENT TO 31.03.2014 INASMUCH AS THE WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITIO N CANNOT BE MADE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THIS, THOUGH, MAY NOT BE CONS TRUED AS A FINAL FINDING IN THE MATTER IN-AS-MUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL IS PRESENTLY CONC ERNED ONLY WITH THE ASSESSEES STATUS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13, THE R ELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, WITH R. 3(1) R/W R.79 OF THE RULES CLEARLY PROVIDING FOR TH E WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION, WHICH HAS TO BE IN WRITING, SO THAT THE SATISFACTIO N OR THE IMPLICATION OF THE SAID RULES WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE S STATUS AS A RECOGNIZED PROVIDENT FUND THUS CANNOT BE DISTURBED FOR THE CUR RENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED SUBMISSION OF FORM 40C, WHICH, IN EFFECT, I S THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE. THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(25) OF THE ACT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS, THEREFORE, BAD IN LAW AND, ACCORDINGLY, REVERSED. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON AUGUST 28, 2017 AT CHENNAI . SD/- ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED, AUGUST 28, 2017 EDN 0 ( *'-12 32%- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. *+&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 4- ( )/CIT(A) 4. , 4- /CIT 5. 2$56 *'-' /DR 6. 67# 8 /GF