C.I.T., Aligarh V. Jami Urdu, Aligarh

MA 29/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7621 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P K SEHGAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A. L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 29/AGRA/2010 (IN ITA NO. 455/AGRA/2007) COMMISSIONER OF VS. JAMIA URDU, MEDICAL ROAD, INCOME-TAX, ALIGARH DODHPUR, ALIGARH. (PAN : AAATJ 5521 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. SEHGAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 30.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 30.03.2012 ORDER PER BENCH : THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 455/AGRA/ 2007 WAS DECIDED BY THE ITAT, AGRA BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2008. T HE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALIGARH GR ANTED REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 12A/12AA OF THE IT ACT VIDE ORDER DAT ED 25.09.2007 W.E.F. 01.04.2004. THE ASSESSEE FELT AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL W ITH THE PRAYER THAT THE REGISTRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY CONDONING THE DELAY W.E.F. 06.08.1983. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DIRECTED THE LD. COMMISSIONER TO GRANT REGIS TRATION TO THE ASSESSEE M.A. NO. 29/AGRA/2010 2 INSTITUTION W.E.F. 06.08.1983 AS WAS PRAYED FOR. TH E REVENUE PREFERRED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL GRANTING REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE W.E.F. 06.08.1983 ON T HE REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PRAYER IN THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION FOR GRA NT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. 01.04.1998 ONLY AND AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NO T HAVE BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION W.E.F. 06.08.1983. THE LD. DR FILED ON E OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 23.03.2007 AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO PRAYER MADE IN THIS APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND GRANT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. 06.08.1983, THEREFORE, THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD, WHICH MAY BE, ACCORDINGLY, RECTIFIED . 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUBMI TTED THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION W .E.F. 01.04.1998. HOWEVER, DURING THE PENDENCY OF REGISTRATION APPLICATION, TH E ASSESSEE MOVED TWO MORE APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER ON DATED 0 7.07.2007 AND 29.08.2007 EXPLAINING THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSEE-INSTITUTION HA S BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT W.E.F. 06.08.1983 WHICH WAS RENEWED T IME TO TIME. THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION MAY BE GRANTED U/S. 12A W.E.F. THE CRE ATION OF THE ASSESSEE- TRUST/INSTITUTION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE SAME SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE FILED IN THE ORIGINAL PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE M.A. NO. 29/AGRA/2010 3 TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF MAIN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL WAS RAISED SPECIFICALLY FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. 06.08 .1983, I.E., THE DATE OF CREATION OF ASSESSEE-TRUST/INSTITUTION RETROSPECTIVELY BY CO NDONING THE DELAY, THEREFORE, THE M.A. OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANAMIKA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., 251 ITR 585 HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT CHANGE ITS VI EW ALREADY TAKEN IN THE MATTER. HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. IDEAL ENGINEERS, 251 ITR 743 AND HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AGARWAL WAREHOUSING, 257 ITR 235 (MP) HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT REVIEW THE ORDER ALREADY PASSED ON MERITS. THE MATERIAL FILED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF TRUST, I. E., 06.08.1983 AND SUCH EVIDENCES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. COMMIS SIONER AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERATION OF REGISTRATION APPLICATION. SINCE TH E TRIBUNAL IN ITS WISDOM HAS ACCEPTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY AND HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION W.E.F. CREATION OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY M.A. NO. 29/AGRA/2010 4 MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED AT THIS STAGE. ACCOR DINGLY, THE MA OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.03.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY