Commissioner of Income-tax -1, Pune V. S E T U., Ahmednagar

MA 72/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6314 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKAR A RAO, AM . / MA NO.72/PUN/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1610/PUN/2014) SETU, C/O. COLLECTOR OFFICE COMPOUND, AHMEDNAGAR PAN : AAHTS3279C . / APPLICANT V/S CIT - 1, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPLICANT BY : SHRI HARI KRISHAN / RESPONDENT BY : S SHRI M.K. VERMA / ORDER PER KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THE CAPTIONED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1610/PUN/2014 DATED 25- 04-2018. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL AND MENTIONE D THAT IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF CONSIDERING THE EARLIER APPLICATION DATED 04-05-200 6 AND GRANTING REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM THAT DATE. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE SAID ISSUE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL A ND A DIRECTION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE FOLLOWING PRAYER AND THE SAID PARA NO.6 IS EXTR ACTED AS UNDER : 6. .. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE HONBLE BENCH HAS RESTORED THE MATTER OF DEEMED REGISTRATION TO THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUT IT HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE LATTER PART OF GROUND NOS. / DATE OF HEARING :11.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.01.2019 2 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RE QUESTED THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CIT MAY BE DIRECTED TO GRANT REGI STRATION TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE DATE OF ITS INCEPTION BY CONDONING THE DE LAY IN FILING THE IST APPLICATION U/S.12A OF THE ACT. A SPECIFIC SUBMISS ION IN THIS REGARD WAS MADE BY OUR AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. THUS AN ERROR HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED TH AT THE ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL A, BENCH, PUNE DATED 25-04-2018 IN ITA N O.1610/PUN/2014 MAY BE RECTIFIED BY PASSING A SUITABLE RECTIFICATION OR DER. 3. ON HEARING THE ARGUMENT/ISSUE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE SAME STANDS ADJUDICATED BY US IN PARA NO.6 OF T HE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND REMITTED THE SAID ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO AFTER DUE DELIBERA TIONS AND BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SAID PARA NO.6 ALONG WITH ITS FIRST SUB-PARA ARE EXTRACTED HERE AS UNDER : 6. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE OF GRAN TING REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE ACT. IT IS THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE, IS ENTITLE D FOR REGISTRATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE CIT TO GRANT REGISTRATION W.E.F. 31-08- 2009. CIT GRANTED THE SAME IN COMPLIANCE OF THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND, HOWEVER, HE TREATED THE ISSUE OF GRANTING REGISTRAT ION BASED ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 04-05-2006 AS REDUNDANT. IN THE PROCESS, HE IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE LOST THE REGISTRATION BE NEFITS WITH EFFECT FROM 04-05-2006 TO 31-08-2009. FURTHER, THE FACT OF FILING OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AND CONSEQUENT BENEFIT S TO THE ASSESSEE ARE LEFT UNATTENDED OR UN-ADJUDICATED. AS SUCH, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS NOT FILED AT ALL OR FILED BELATEDL Y AND THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONABLE. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE REQUIREME NT OF GRANTING OF BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. 04-05-2006 TO 31-08-2009 WAS DI SCUSSED IN FIRST SUB-PARA OF PARA NO.6. WE HAVE ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT CIT MER ELY DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE SAME AS REDUNDANT. IN THE PRO CESS, THE CIT FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RELATING TO CONDONABILITY OF DELAY, IF ANY. INFACT, IN OUR ORDER, WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE WHOLE ISSUE AND DIRECTED THE CIT TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS AND LAW. CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY REC TIFIABLE MISTAKE. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 25 TH JANUARY, 2019 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. CIT-I, PUNE % , , A BENCH PUNE; 5. / GUARD FILE.