M/S URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), JAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 497/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 December 20193 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT had subsequently granted registration with retrospective effect from the date of application. Therefore, the assessee's appeal became infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12A. The CIT rejected the application, but the ITAT directed the CIT to allow it. Subsequently, the CIT issued a letter stating registration cannot be retrospective, leading to this appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT erred in not granting retrospective registration, and if the subsequent order granting retrospective registration rendered the appeal infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 497/JP/2019
ITA No. 378/JP/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against an order/letter dated 14th February, 2019 issued from the Office of ld. CIT (Exemptions). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

“ 1. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 14.02.2018 passed by the ld. CIT (E) is perverse, non-speaking, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (E) has erred in passing the order dated 14.02.2018 by going against the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur provided in order dated 11.09.2017 in appeal bearing no. 378/JP/2013.

3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (E) has erred in passing the order dated 14.02.2018 against the provision of Section 12A of the Act.

4.

The appellant company craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

The assessee trust filed an application in Form No. 10A on 28th May, 2007 for 2. registration under section 12A of the IT Act. The ld. CIT (E) Kota rejected the said application vide order dated 28.11.2007 which was challenged by the assessee before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide its order dated 13/09/2017 in directed the ld. CIT (E) to allow the application of the assessee for registration under section 12AA. Pursuant to the said direction of the Tribunal dated 13/09/2017, a letter was issued by the Office of the CIT (E) on 14.02.2019 in connection with the provisions of the Income Tax Act not permitting retrospective effect registration under section 12AA of the Act. Against the said communication, the assessee has filed the present appeal.

3.

At the time of hearing, the ld. CIT D/R has filed a copy of the order dated 28.08.2019 whereby the ld. CIT (E) has granted registration under section 12AA of the Act to the assessee with effect from 28th May, 2007 i.e. the date of application.

In view of the said order dated 28.08.2019 the present appeal of the assessee becomes non est and infructuous. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal with a liberty to file a fresh appeal, if any, against the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the ld. CIT (E).

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being withdrawn.

3 Urban Improvement Trust, Kota. 4. As far as liberty to file the fresh appeal, since the present appeal was not filed against the order dated 28.08.2019, therefore, there is no bar for filing the appeal against the said order dated 28.08.2019. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →