M/s Mohali Biotechnology Park, Mohali V. CIT II, Chandigarh

MA 150/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6143 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2019

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , '( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1061/CHD/2013 ( U/S 12AA) ( DECIDED VIDE ORDER 16.11.2016) MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK KNOWLEDGE CITY, MOHALI THE CIT-II, CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO: AAHCM3088J APPELLANT /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.N. SINGLA, CA / REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDERSHAN, SR.DR ! /DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2020 '#$%&' ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.09.2020 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT IS A MISC. APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASS ESSEE-APPELLANT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2016 OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLA NT / APPLICANT HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL I.E. ITA NO. 1061/CHD/2013 AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE APPELLANTS APPLICATION FOR RE GISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 2 TAX-II, [HEREIN REFERRED TO AS CIT(E)], AYAKAR BH AWAN, CHANDIGARH VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 20.09.2013 (WRONGLY WRITTEN AS 29 . 2.2013). THE SAID APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE O RDER DATED 16.11.2016 VIDE WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT, NOW LD. CIT(E), FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER GIVING TH E APPELLANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE ITS CASE BEFORE HIM. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT / APPLICA NT APPROACHED SEVERAL TIMES TO THE CIT(E) TO DECIDE ITS APPEAL AS DIRECTE D BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 16.11.2016. THE WRITTEN REQUESTS DATED 3.1.2017, 12.4.2017 WERE ALSO MADE. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(E) HAD ALSO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 31.10.2017 REQUIRING THE APPELLANT / APPL ICANT TO FURNISH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. THAT THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS WERE DULY F URNISHED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE CIT(E) ON 10.11.2017, HOWEVER, AGAIN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.1.2018 WAS ISSUED BY THE CIT(E) TO APPELLANT TO FURNISH MORE DETAILS. THE REQUIRED DETAILS WERE AGAIN SUBMI TTED BY THE APPELLANT ON 1.2.2018. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE APPELLANT / APPLICA NT ALSO FILED A GRIEVANCE PETITION WITH THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CB DT) ON 22.1.2018, WHEREUPON, THE LD. CIT(E) VIDE LETTER DATED 31.1.20 18 REPLIED THAT DEEMING PROVISIONS FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WITH IN 6 MONTHS WERE NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED / REM ANDED FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. THE APPELLANT / APPLICANT THEREAFTER AGAIN REQUESTED THE CIT(E) VIDE LETTER DATED 22.11.2018 TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE MATT ER AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 16.11.2016 BUT NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 3 LD. CIT (E) TILL DATE. ON FAILURE OF THE LD. CIT(E ) TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH ON THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE APPLICANT D ATED 30.3.2013 AND AFTER WAITING FOR SUFFICIENT TIME, THE APPLICANT APPROACH ED THIS TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT / APPLICANT HAS RELIED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA (2) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER:- PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION 12AA. (1) .. (2) EVERY ORDER GRANTING OR REFUSING REGISTRATION U NDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE PASSED BEFORE THE EXPIRY O F SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS R ECEIVED UNDER CLAUSE (A) [OR CLAUSE (AA) OF SUB-SECTION (1)] OF SECTION 12A.] THE LD. COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH READS AS U NDER:- WE MAY LIKE TO SUBMIT AS PER SECTION 153(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 'NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) AND (2) AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMEN T IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 OR SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264, SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENT, MAY HE MADE AT ANY TIME OR BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEA R IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY TH E PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR, AS TH E CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR 264 IS PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER.' 3. THE LD. COUNSEL IN THIS RESPECT HAS RELIED UPON CERTAIN CASE LAWS, THE RELEVANT PART OF HIS SUBMISSIONS IS REPRODUCED AS U NDER:- M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 4 FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED IN CASE OF CIT VS SAHIT YA SADAWART SAMITI (2017) 39S SIR 46 (RAJ.) WHERE IT W AS HELD THAT ' IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES EITHER DUE TO DEFECT IN APPLICATION OR ON MERITS OF IT COMMISSIONER UNDER S UB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12AA IS SUPPOSED TO GRANT OR REFUSE REGISTRATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM END OF MONTHS IN WHICH APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED .' THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SOCIETY FOR PROMN. OF EDN (2016) 67 TAXAMMN.COM 264/238 TAXAMAN,330 (SC) HELD THAT - 'WHERE THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12A FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATIONS ON 24.02.2003 AND SAME WAS NOT RESPONDED TO WITHIN SIX MONTHS, REGISTRATION OF APPLICATION WAS TO BE DEEMED TO HAVE TAKEN EFFECT F ROM 24.08.2003' AND IN THE CASE OF SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF EDUCATION, ADVENTURE SPORTS & CONSERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT V. CIT (2008) 171 TAXMAN 113 (ALL) , IT WAS HELD THAT - 'NON-CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION F OR REGISTRATION WITHIN TIME FIXED BY SECTION 12AA(2) W OULD RESULT IN DEEMED GRANT OF REGISTRATION-.' THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DIR ECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS ) VS SOHANLAL CHOKHANI PUBLIC CHARITABL E TRUST, HYDERABAD M.A. NO. 131/HYD/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1468/ HYD/2012) ORDER DATED 4.7.2013 TO SUBMIT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE S AID CASE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF BHAGWAD SWARUP SHRI SHRI DEVRAHA BABA MEMORIAL SHRI HARI PA RMARTH DHAM TRUST VS CIT [2008] 299 ITR (AT)161 AND OF ANOTHER DECIS ION OF COORDINATE HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF NICE FOUNDATION VS DDIT ITA NO. 2039/HYD/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 8.8.2012 HAS HELD T HAT THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT IN SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION12AA SHALL APPLY M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 5 TO THE MATTERS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. THE LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DE CISIONS, THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AND REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12AA OF THE AC T FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION ITSELF. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS NOT ADDRESSED ANY ARGUMENTS ON THE POINT AS TO WHY THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLAN T /APPLICANT FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT NOT BE DEEMED AS A CCEPTED ON THE FAILURE OF THE LD. CIT(E) IN NOT ADJUDICATING UPON THE SAME FR OM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2016 TILL THE PAS SING OF THE SIX MONTHS THEREAFTER. 5. IN THE ABOVE SCENARIO, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REPRODU CE THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & OTHERS VS SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF EDUCATION REPORTED IN (2016) 382 ITR 6 [2016] / 67 TAXMANN.COM 264 (SC) DATED OCTOBER 23, 2013:- KURIAN JOSEPH J .LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE SOLE RES PONDENT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT FOR ON A C OUPLE OF OCCASIONS EARLIER. 3. THE SHORT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DEEMED REG ISTRATION OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961. THE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ONCE AN APPLICATION I S MADE UNDER THE SAID PROVISION AND IN CASE THE SAME IS NOT RESPONDED TO WITHIN SIX MONTHS, IT WOULD BE TAKEN THAT THE APPLICATION IS REGISTERED U NDER THE PROVISION. 4. THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL APPEARI NG FOR THE APPELLANTS, HAS RAISED AN APPREHENSION THAT IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT, SINCE THE M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 6 DATE OF APPLICATION WAS OF FEBRUARY 24, 2003, AT TH E WORST, THE SAME WOULD OPERATE ONLY AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE O F THE APPLICATION. 5. WE SEE NO BASIS FOR SUCH AN APPREHENSION SINCE T HAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL SENSE IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT COULD BE UNDERSTOOD. TH EREFORE, IN ORDER TO DISABUSE ANY APPREHENSION, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT TH E REGISTRATION OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM AUGUST 24, 2003. 6. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION AND LEAVING A LL OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW OPEN, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF WITH NO ORDER A S TO COSTS. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA B ENCH OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS THE GOSPEL HOME ITA NO.287O F 2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.7.2016 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION OF THE APEX COURT, MR. AGARWAL SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICATION IN THE CASE BEFORE US FOR REGISTRATION WAS MADE ON 25TH MAY, 2007. THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED ONLY ON 25TH NOVEMBER, 2007, THAT IS TO SAY, IN THE FINANCIAL YE AR 2007-08. MR. BASU, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESS EE DID NOT DISPUTE THIS SUBMISSION OF MR. AGARWAL. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF BY DIRECTING THAT THE PRAYER FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED WITH EFFECT FR OM 25TH NOVEMBER, 2007 WHICH SHALL, HOWEVER, BE OPERATIVE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 BEGINNING FROM 1ST APRIL, 2007. THE QUESTION FORMULATED WAS NOT PRESSED BY MR.AGARW AL. THE APPEAL IS THUS DISPOSED OF. 6. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THAT OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT REVEAL THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WITHOUT DECIDIN G THE QUESTION OF LAW M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 7 AS TO WHETHER THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT W OULD BE DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED, ON THE FAILURE OF THE CIT(E) TO PASS AN OR DER ON THE SAID APPLICATION WITHIN PERIOD SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HON' BLE HIGH HAS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE REGISTRATION LEAVING THE QUESTION OF L AW OPEN. 7. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS AND EVENTS OF THIS CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS REMANDED THE MATTER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH TO THE LD. CIT(E) VIDE ORDER DATED 16.11.2016. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT / APPLI CANT APPROACHED SEVERAL TIMES TO THE LD. CIT (E) AND MADE WRITTEN REQUESTS ALSO REQUESTING THE LD. CIT(E) AS DETAILED IN THE FORMER PART OF ORDER, TO DECIDE / ADJUDICATE UPON HIS APPLICATION, AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE O RDER DATED 16.11.2016, BUT THE LD. CIT(E) HAS FAILED TO ADJUDICATE ON THE SAID APPLICATION. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE LD.CIT(E) HAD DE MANDED CERTAIN INFORMATION OF EVIDENCES FROM THE APPELLANT WHICH W ERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT / APPLICANT TO THE LD. CIT(E) AND NO ADVERSE COMMENTS OF THE LD. CIT(E) THEREUPON HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWL EDGE. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED A GRIEVANCE PETITION TO TH E HIGHEST CONTROLLING BODY OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT I.E. C.B.D.T. BUT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT REMAINED UNADDRESSED. M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 8 8. THE ONLY RELIEF WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD SOUGHT W AS THAT HIS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION MAY BE DECIDED IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT SECTION 12AA(2) OF THE ACT REQUIRES T HE LD. CIT(E) TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE APPLICATION RECEIVED IN ITS OFF ICE FOR REGISTRATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE APP LICATION IS RECEIVED. AS HELD BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) A BOVE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA(2) IN THE SAME SPIRIT APPLIES TO THE M ATTER REMANDED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE CIT(E) FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH ON T HE APPLICATION RECEIVED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. EVEN OTHERWIS E, IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(E) TO SIT OVER THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FOR YEARS TOGETHER ONLY BECAUSE THE MA TTER HAS BEEN REMANDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND NOT IS A FRESH APPLICATION MOVE D BY THE APPELLANT U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 AA OF THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION SHOULD BE DEC IDED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, THEN, IN OUR VIEW, AS ALSO HELD BY THE COOR DINATE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NICE FOUNDATION (S UPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF SOHANLAL CHOKHANI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) THE PROVISION OF SUB SECTION (2) TO SECTION 12AA SHALL APPLY TO THE MATT ERS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. AFTER REMANDING OF THE MATTER BY THE TRIBUNAL TO HI M AND DESPITE SEVERAL REQUESTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT / AP PLICANT TO LD. CIT (E) TO DECIDE THE MATTER AND FURTHER EVEN ON DULY FURNISHI NG THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AS SOUGHT BY THE LD. CIT(E), AN INORDIN ATE DELAY OF ABOUT FOUR YEARS ON THE PART OF LD. CIT(E), IN OUR VIEW , CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 9 THE MATTER DOES NOT END HERE. THE PRESENT M.A. OF T HE APPELLANT- APPLICANT CAME FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 28.2.2020, WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING ORDER WAS PASSED: IN THE PRESENT M.A. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT EVEN AFTER PASSING OF MORE THAN 3 YEARS, FROM THE DATE OF THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CI T(E), THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A HAS NOT BE EN DECIDED. WHEREAS AS PER THE PROVISIONS THE SAME HAS TO BE DECIDED WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION. THE DEPTT. TO ADDRESS THE BENCH ON THE POINT AS TO WHY THE APPLICATION BE NOT DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 AA OF T HE ACT. TO COME ON 6/3/2020 9. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE ORDER SHOWS THAT A SPECIF IC QUERY WAS RAISED BY THIS TRIBUNAL FROM THE LD. DR / DEPARTMENT TO ADDRE SS THE BENCH ON THE POINT AS TO WHY THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT BE NOT DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECITON12AA OF THE ACT. HO WEVER, ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR DID NOT ADDRESS OR PUT ANY D EFENCE ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SAID HE HAS NOTHING TO SAY AND THE M ATTER WAS TAKEN AS HEARD. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER DUE TO CLOSURE OF THE OFFICE / LOCK DOWN / CURFEW ETC. IN THE WAKE OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE M ATTER COULD NOT BE DECIDED. THE SAME WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR RE-HEARING ON 7.9.2020 AGAIN. THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. DR WAS AGAIN INVITED TO THE OR DER DATED 28.2.2020 AND HE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY AS TO WHETHER HE HAS TO AD DRESS ANY ARGUMENT ON THIS ISSUE BUT HE FAIRLY ADMITTED THE LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT TO M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 10 DECIDE THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOTHING MORE TO SAY. 10. NOW, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & OTHERS VS SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF EDUCATION(SUPRA) AND OF HON'BLE CALCU TTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS THE GOSPEL HOME (SUPRA), WE DEEM I T APPROPRIATE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO DIRECT THE LD. CIT(E) TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE APPELLANT / APPLICANT FROM PA SSING OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.03.2013 I.E. F ROM 30.09.2013 WHICH SHALL, HOWEVER, BE OPERATIVE DURING THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2017-18 BEGINNING FROM 1.4.2017. THE APPELLANT WILL BE ENTITLED TO B ENEFIT OF THE REGISTRATION AS ADMISSIBLE AS PER THE OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ALSO. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT OUR DIRECTIONS GIVEN WILL NOT OPERATE AS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AND THE QUESTION OF LAW REGARDING THE OPE RATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (2) TO SECTION 12AA AS DEEMING FICTI ON, IS LEFT OPEN. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. FILED THE APPELLANT APPLICA NT IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21.09.2020. SD/- SD/- ( # $ % &' / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) '( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21. 09.2019 )) M.A. NO. 150/CHD/2019 IN ITA NO. 1066-CHD/2013- MOHALI BIOTECHNOLOGY PARK, MOHALI 11 #* +, -,& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. . / CIT 4. . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. ,/0 1 , ! 1' , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 04 6 / GUARD FILE