Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, CHENNAI V. DDIT, OSD, CHENNAI

MA 101/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6880 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R VENKATESH
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ' / M.P. NOS.68, 98, 99 & 100/CHNY/2018 (IN I.T.A. NOS.1195 TO 1198/MDS/2014) # !$# / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2008-09 M/S ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU, BAR COUNCIL BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, CHENNAI - 600 104. PAN : AAATA 8205 B V. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) II, CHENNAI - 600 034. (&'# /PETITIONER) (&(')/ RESPONDENT) ! ! ' / M.P. NOS.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 & 106/CHNY/2018 (IN I.T.A. NOS.1199 TO 1204/MDS/2014) # !$# / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04, 2005-06 TO 2009-10 M/S THE BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU AND ITS UNIT ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND, BAR COUNCIL BUILDING, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, CHENNAI - 600 104. PAN : AAATB 5945 K V. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) II, CHENNAI - 600 034. (&'# /PETITIONER) (&(')/ RESPONDENT) &'# + , / /PETITIONERS BY : SHRI R. VENKATESH, CA &(') + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT - ! + ./ / DATE OF HEARING : 22.06.2018 01$ + ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2018 2 M.P. NOS.68,98 TO 100/CHNY/18 M.P. NOS.101 TO 106/CHNY/18 / O R D E R THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE FILED BY TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A N ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 15.07.2016. 2. SHRI R. VENKATESH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEES, SUBMITTED THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY TH IS TRIBUNAL ON 15.07.2016, THE DIT (EXEMPTIONS) ISSUED A NOTICE FO R MODIFICATION OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS T RIBUNAL, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVE D AT PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER THAT BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU AND ADVOCATES WELFAR E FUND ARE TWO DIFFERENT STATUTORY BODIES ESTABLISHED UNDER RESPEC TIVE STATUTORY ENACTMENTS. THEREFORE, THE TWO ENTITIES, NAMELY, B AR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU AND ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND HAVE TO BE CONSIDER ED AS TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FUND ESTABLISHED UNDER ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND ACT, 2001 IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADVOCATE WELFARE FUND ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ADVOCAT ES ACT, 1961. AS PER ADVOCATES ACT, 1961, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRE SENTATIVE, EVERY ADVOCATE SHALL BE THE MEMBER OF THE FUND ESTABLISHE D BY BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT FUNDS. ONE IS ESTABLISHED BY BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER ONE IS ESTABLISHED AS PER PROVISIONS OF ADV OCATES WELFARE FUND 3 M.P. NOS.68,98 TO 100/CHNY/18 M.P. NOS.101 TO 106/CHNY/18 ACT, 2001. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE, THESE TWO FUNDS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. SINCE THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THESE ASPECTS, ACC ORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE DIRECTOR (EXEMPTIONS) COULD NOT PASS ANY ORDER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT TIME LIMITATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IS ONLY SIX MONTHS. WHEN THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES, THE SIX MONT HS PERIOD WAS EXPIRED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THESE MISCELL ANEOUS PETITIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE F ILED AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE DIRECTO R (EXEMPTIONS) COULD NOT PASS THE ORDER IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL, IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 15.07.2016 HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 9. . THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE REGISTRATION GRAN TED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ON 29.08.2011 AND THE ORDER THAT MAY BE PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INC OME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF CBDT DATED 27.05.2016 AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE 4 M.P. NOS.68,98 TO 100/CHNY/18 M.P. NOS.101 TO 106/CHNY/18 WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE DIRECTOR ( EXEMPTIONS) HAS TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS OPEN TO THE DIRECTOR (EXEMPTIONS) TO CONSIDER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THIS TRIBUNAL CLARIFIES THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION FOR DIRECTOR (EXEMPTIO NS) TO DECIDE THE MATTER AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, WHICH EXISTED AT T HE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, ALL THE MISCELLANEOU S PETITIONS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH JULY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3' /DATED, THE 26 TH JULY, 2018 KRI. + &.4 5 $. /COPY TO: 1. &'# /PETITIONER 2. &(') /RESPONDENT 3. - 6. () /CIT(A) 4. - 6. /CIT 5. !7 &. /DR 6. 8# 9 /GF.