CIT (EXEMPTION), Jaipur V. M/S RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB, Jaipur

MA 84/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7236 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VFER 'KWDYK] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VE DK'K DKUR ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI OM PRAKASH KAN T, AM M.A. NO. 84/JP/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 442/JP/2012) FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : ................. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB, RAMBAGH CIRCLE, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAAAR 0294 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH VERMA (CIT-DR) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/09/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/09/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE AFORESAID MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE REVENUE SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRI BUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES HAVE BEEN CREPT IN WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED BY RECALLING THE ORDER. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE LD. CIT-DR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) W.E.F. 15/06/1999. SUCH A REGISTRATION GRAN TED HAS BEEN CANCELLED BY THE LD. CIT-2, JAIPUR VIDE ORDER DATED 28/3/2012 FROM THE 2 M.A. 84/JP/2018 CIT(E) VS RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB INITIAL DATE OF REGISTRATION. HE POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, TWO ISSUES WERE RAISED, I.E., FIRSTLY, WHETHER THE LD. CI T WAS CORRECT IN WITHDRAWING THE REGISTRATION WITH THE INITIAL YEAR OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED; AND SECONDLY, WHETHER HE WAS CORRECT IN HOL DING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY ARE NOT CHARITABLE. BOTH THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WHILE NOT ING DOWN THE FACTS AT PAGES 19 AND 20 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE HONBL E TRIBUNAL HAS GONE ON THE PREMISE THAT INITIAL REGISTRATION HAS BEEN G RANTED U/S 12A OF THE ACT, INSTEAD OF STATING THAT THE REGISTRATION WAS GR ANTED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. HOW W.E.F. 01/4/1997, THE REGISTRATION ARE TO B E GRANTED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 12A OF THE ACT. FURTHER, MISTAK E WHICH HAS BEEN CREPT IN, IS THAT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE CIT HAS N O POWER TO WITHDRAW THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12A OF THE ACT IN THE YEAR 1974. SUCH AN OBSERVATION IS INCORRECT, BECAUSE REG ISTRATION WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1999 AND THAT TO BE U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE JUDGMENT AND CONCLUSION BASED ON THIS MI STAKE SHOULD BE RECTIFIED BY RECALLING THE ORDER. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, SUBMITTED THAT THESE MISTAKES ARE PURELY IN THE NATURE OF TYPOGRAP HICAL MISTAKE AND ORDER AS A WHOLE SHOULD NOT BE RECALLED AND THEREFO RE, THE FINDING OF THE 3 M.A. 84/JP/2018 CIT(E) VS RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED AND ONLY SUCH MISTA KES SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN PRINCIPLE HAS HELD THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 12AA AND 12A OF T HE ACT CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN FROM RETROSPECTIVE DATE AND TO ARRIVE AT TH IS CONCLUSION, THEY HAVE REFERRED AND RELIED UPON VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS JUDGMENTS. THEREFORE, SUCH A CONCLUSION NOW CANNOT BE REVIEWED. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNALS ORDER AND THE FACTS STATED BEFOR E US, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGI STRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT ON 15/6/1999 AND NOT U/S 12A OF THE ACT. TH EREFORE, THE OBSERVATIONS GIVEN AT PAGE 19 IN THE 8 TH LINE OF THE ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A IS NOT COR RECT AND THE SAME SHOULD BE READ AS 12AA. SIMILAR MISTAKE IS APPEAR ING IN 11 TH LINE AND AT PAGE 20 OF THE ORDER ON THE 5 TH LINE ALSO WHICH IS TO BE CORRECTED AS 12AA. FURTHER IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE CIT HAS NO POWER TO CANCEL OR WITHDRAW THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE A SSESSEE U/S 12A IN THE YEAR 1974, WHICH AGAIN SHOULD BE READ AS 12AA IN TH E YEAR 1999. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE LD. CIT CANN OT CANCEL THE REGISTRATION BOTH UNDER THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 12 AA(3) W.E.F. 01/10/2004 AND ALSO UNDER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT W.E. F. 01/6/2010 IN 4 M.A. 84/JP/2018 CIT(E) VS RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT. ONCE SUCH A FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BASED ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, THEN UNDER THE SCOPE O F SECTION 254(2), NEITHER THE CONCLUSION CAN BE CHANGED NOR CAN IT BE RECALLED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE ONLY RECTIFYING THE MISTAKES AS ABOVE AND SHOULD BE READ IN THE ORDER. SD/- SD/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE CIT(E), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (MA NO. 84/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR