The CIT-I, Nashik V. Geetanjali Medical Trust, Nashik

MA 112/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6079 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARESHWAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO MA NO. 112/PN/10 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1579/PN/20 07) A.Y 2007-08 THE CIT-I, NASHIK .... APPELLANT VS. GEETANJALI MEDICAL TRUST C/O. DR. VAIBHAV J. PUSTAKE, B/H SHIVAM TOWERS, A/P PIMPALGAON BASWANT, DIST. NASHIK PAN NO. AABTG0002D . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARESHWAR SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : NONE ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IT ARISES OUT OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER BEARING ITA NO. 1579/PN/07 DATED 3 0-04-2008, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT REJECTING THE RE GISTRATION U/S 12A FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER. IN THE SAID ORDER, TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE EXISTS AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND T HE CIT IGNORED THE SAME. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE REVENUE F ILED THE PRESENT MA STATING THAT THE CIT DENIED THE REGISTRATION BY PASSI NG A SPEAKING ORDER, BUT IT IS THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WRONGLY ASSUMED THAT THERE EXISTS A CONDONATION PETITION AND TRIBUNAL PASSED THE ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT ON WRONG FACTS. REVENUE PLEADS FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. PER CONTRA, THERE IS NONE FOR THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE ASSESSEE FIL ED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DT 13-01-2011 WHEREIN THERE IS A RE QUEST FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS FROM THE ASS ESSEES LETTER DATED 13- 01-2011 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- HOWEVER, THE SAID APPEAL WAS SET ASIDE BY THE HONO URABLE BENCH TO THE FILE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WITH DIRECTION T O CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE TRUST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY I N FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12A. MA NO. 112/PN/10 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1579/PN/07 PAGE 2 OF2 THEREFORE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION IN RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE BENCH IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 1579/PN/07. 3. WE HAVE HEARD TO THE LD. DR, NOBODY WAS PRESENT FO R THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE TRUSTEE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED TO THE RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THERE EXISTS MISTAKE IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE OTHER PAPERS AVAILABLE BEFORE US AND FIND THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THIS CASE. T HUS, THE TRIBUNAL MISTAKENLY HELD THAT CIT FAILED TO ADJUDICATE ON THE CONDONATI ON APPLICATION. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE RECALLED. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE CAS E IN NORMAL COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MA OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I. C. SUDHIR) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 19 TH JANUARY, 2011 R COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT-I, NASHIK 4. D.R. ITAT PUNE BENCH, PUNE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE