SAFI, Malappuram V. CIT, Calicut

MA 22/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8643 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAJRIA M
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

1 M.A.NO. 22/COCH/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) M.A. 22/COCH/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 530/COCH/2009) SAFI (SOCIAL ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION : C.I.T., CALI CUT OF INDIA, SIAS BLDG, RASIA NAGAR VAZHAYUR EAST P.O, MALAPPURAM DIST. PAN : AADTS7863A (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MS. SHAJRIA M RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 29-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-07-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DAT ED 16-06-2011. 2. MS. SHAJRIA M, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL, BY AN ORDER DATED 16-06-2011 REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX FOR RE-CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, BY MISTA KE, INSTEAD OF COMMISSIONER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS MENTIONED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX( A). ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE VERY APPEAL ITSELF WAS ARISI NG OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER REJECTING THE APPLICATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE MAT TER SHOULD BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE C.I.T. AND NOT THE C.I.T.(A). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE IS AN ERROR TO THAT EXTENT. 2 M.A.NO. 22/COCH/2012 3. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUB MITTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER FOR RECONSIDE RATION. THEREFORE, THERE IS AN ERROR TO THAT EXTENT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS MENTIONED AS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THE LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR CORRECTING THIS ER ROR, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS THIS TRIBUNAL ITSELF C AN CORRECT THE MISTAKE THROUGH CORRIGENDUM. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THIS TRI BUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE PARTIES REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE LOWER AUTHORITY ADMITTEDLY IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER AND NOT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFI ED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 16-06-2011 IS RECT IFIED AS UNDER: THE WORDS CIT (APPEALS) AS FOUND ON PAGE 4, AT PA RAGRAPH 4 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, MORE PARTICULARLY, LINES 11 & 12 FR OM THE TOP ARE HEREBY DELETED. INSTEAD, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5. AFTER THE RECTIFICATION, THE OPERATIVE PORTION O F PARAGRAPH 4 ON PAGE 4 SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS: .WE SET SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT DATED 04-08- 2009 WHEREBY THE LD.CIT DENIED 80G RECOGNITION AND REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX FOR PROPER ADJUDICAT ION ON MERIT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDED DEED AND AFTER ANALYZING AND V ERIFYING THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST. 3 M.A.NO. 22/COCH/2012 6. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RECTIFIED ACCORDING LY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STA NDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 20 TH JULY, 2012 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH