Commissioner of Income-tax -IV, V. M/s Agriculture Produce Market, Nagpur

MA 4/NAG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0040 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M MANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH , (E - COURT), MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA , J M & SHRI RAJENDRA , A M MA NO. 04 / NAG /20 11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 05/NAG /20 10 ) CIT - IV, NAGPUR VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, KALMESHWAR DISTRICT NAGPUR. ( APP LICANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : MR. PRAKASH MANE ASSESSEE BY : MR. M.MANI DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST FEB . , 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13. 02. 201 3 O R D E R PER SHRI R.K.GUPTA, JM : THIS MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE ITAT NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 2 7 - 5 - 2011, PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 05 / NAG /20 10, WHICH HAS BEEN HEARD THROUGH E - COURT, MUMBAI . 2 . THE DEPARTMENT BY THIS MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO CONTEST THE APPEAL WHICH WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE CONDONATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN 12A PROCEEDINGS. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AP MC FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 10/08/2005 FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT . THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT - IV, NAGPUR, VIDE ORDER DATED L3/02/2006 . AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DIRECTED TO GRANT M.A NO. 04 /20 1 1 2 REGISTRATION UND E R SECTION 12A. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) PASSED ORDER ON 13 - 10 - 2006 GRANTING REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2005, REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN EARLIER YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE REITERATED VIDE LETTER DATED 28 - 11 - 2006 TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION AND GRANT THE REGISTRATION FROM 1 - 04 - 2002. THE CIT - LV VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 REJECTED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT A FIT CASE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN THE LATE FILING OF THE APPLICATION AND THE ORDER DATED 13 - 10 - 2006 GRANTING REGIS TRATION W. E. F. 1 - 04 - 2005 DID NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHO WHILE PASSING THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 05/NAG/2010, VIDE ORDER DATED 27 - 5 - 2011, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEARNED CIT(A) WAS DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATION W.E.F. 1 - 4 - 2002 . WHILE DIRECTING THE CIT(A) TO GRANT REGISTRATION W.E.F.1 - 4 - 2002, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED VARIOUS ASPECTS AND THE DECISION OF HO NBLE DELHI COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT V. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING PRODUCE CO MMITTEE (250 ITR 369), THE DECISION OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT V. ADONI AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE , 232 ITR 806 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI V. I TO , 158 ITR 742 (BOM) . THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREBY IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REGISTRATION TO OTHER APMC WERE GRANTED W.E.F. 1 - 4 - 2002. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, THE M.A NO. 04 /20 1 1 3 DELAY WAS CONDONED AND LEARNED CIT(A) WAS DIRECTED TO GRANT EXEMPTION FROM 1 - 4 - 2002. 4 . NOW, BY THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE DEPARTMENT HAS STATED THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED A REASONABLE ORDER AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY JURISDICTION WITH THE TR IBUNAL OR NOT IT CANNOT BE AGITATED THROUGH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THEM CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, FOUND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED W.E.F 1 - 4 - 2002 TO VARIOUS OTHER ASSES SEES ON SIMILAR TYPE. THEREFORE, THE DELAY WAS CONDONED BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OR NOT, THIS ISSUE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CANNOT BE AGITATED BY FILING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS IT CAN BE C HALLENGED BEFORE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. HENCE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. M.A NO. 04 /20 1 1 4 ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 6 . RESULTANTLY , MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE E - COURT ON THIS 13 TH D AY OF F EB. , 201 3 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJENDRA ) ( R.K.GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 3 / 0 2 / 201 3 . /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI / NAGPUR. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMB AI / NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI