The Trustee, Belgaum V. Commissioner of Income tax, Belgaum

MA 5/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0682 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHA DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH G SHOLAPURMATH
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M A NO. 5 /PNJ/201 3 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 12/PNJ/2013) THE TRUSTEE SHRI SAMPADANIMATH OF GOKAK GURUWARPETH, GOKAK - 591 307, DIST. BELGAUM PAN : AAITS2619B (APPELLANT) VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELGAUM (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATH, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ASHA DESAI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 4 /0 6 /2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 / 07 /2013 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA : 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO RECTIFY THE ORDER. 1.1 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A), BELGAUM DT. 18.1.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST, SAMPADANIMATH OF GOKAK WAS REGISTERED ON 25.7.1953. THE TRUST HAS FILED APPLICATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT ON 8.4.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS N OW 2 MA NO. 5/PNJ/2013 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 12/PNJ/2013 ) SUBMITTED THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS TRIBUNALS REPORTED IN CTR FOR A FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : - I) CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF GRACE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT, MUMBAI K BENCH, 134 TTJ (MUMBAI) 690 II) SHREE MAHADEVI TIRATH SHARDA MA SEVA SANGH VS. ITO , 133 TTJ (CHD)(UO) 57 III) CHOTAK SINGH MEMORIAL SOCIETY VS. ITO, 134 TTJ (LUCKNOW) 841 IV) KARANDHAI TAMIL SANGAM VS. CIT, 147 TTJ (CHENNAI) (UO)68 V) NOSEGAY PUBLIC SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE VS. CIT, 153 TTJ (JD)( UO) 1 1.2 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 1.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF GRACE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX, ITAT, MUMBAI K BENCH, 134 TTJ (MUMBAI) 690 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION ON 1.5.2007. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH IN SHREE MAHADEVI TIRATH SHARDA MA SEVA SANGH VS. ITO, 133 TTJ (CHD )(UO) 57 AND THE DECISION OF THE LUCKNOW BENCH IN CHOTAK SINGH MEMORIAL SOCIETY VS. ITO, 134 TTJ (LUCKNOW) 841 AND THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH IN KARANDHAI TAMIL SANGAM VS. CIT, 147 TTJ (CHENNAI) (UO) 68 AND THE DECISION OF JODHPUR BENCH IN NOSEGAY P UBLIC SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE VS. CIT, 153 TTJ (JD)(UO) 1 . IN ALL THESE DECISIONS, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT WHEREAS IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GRANTED REGISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT AFTER THE AMENDMENT W.E.F. 1.6.2007, THE COMMISSIONE R HAS NO POWER TO GRANT REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST WHICH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM 1.6.2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE 3 MA NO. 5/PNJ/2013 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 12/PNJ/2013 ) TRIBUNALS BUT IN ALL THESE DECISIONS, THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE. WE FIND THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION IS COMMON TO TAXING STATUTES AND IS EXPECTED TO BE EXERCISED BY THE AUTHORITY THAT PASSES THE ORDER WITHIN THE SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE POWER CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE. THE LAW DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND ANY ORDER PASSED CONTRARY TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT WOULD NECESSARILY REQUIRE TO BE RECTIFIED SO AS TO BRING IT TO CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. LIKEWISE, THE LAW DECLARED BY THE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IS BINDING AND IT IS TO BE FOLLOWED. ANY ORDER CONTRARY TO THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTION HIGH COURT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED AND ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORIT Y WHICH ARE DEVIATING FROM THAT OR IN DISREGARD OF LAW DECLARED BY JURISDICTION HIGH COURT REQUIRE RECTIFICATION AND MISTAKE IN ALL SUCH CASES IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE LD. AR DID NOT BRING ANY JUDGEMENT O F THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OR JURISDICTION HIGH COURT BEFORE US. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 2. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 3. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 / 7 /2013. SD/ - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 12 / 7 / 2013 *SSL* 4 MA NO. 5/PNJ/2013 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 12/PNJ/2013 ) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT, PANAJI (4) CIT(A), PANAJI (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER SR. P RIVATE S ECRETARY ITAT, PANAJI, GOA