K.U.M.S.UDAIPUR vs. C.I.T.UDAIPUR

This appeal is directed against order dated 11.6.09 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the assessee, against the order dated 5.12.08 of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Udaipur, granting registration to the appellant under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) w.e.f. 1.4.05 instead of w.e.f. 1.4.02, stands dismissed.

The facts in brief are that the appellant submitted an application before CIT for grant of registration under Section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 1.4. 02. The application was rejected by the CIT vide order dated 6.10. 05. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed by the ITAT vide order dated 17.11.06, with the direction to CIT to grant registration to the appellant under Section 12A of the Act. In compliance of the order passed by the ITAT as aforesaid, CIT granted registration to the appellant under Section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.05 vide order dated 5.12. 08. Aggrieved by the denial of registration w.e.f. 1.4.02 as applied for, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ITAT, which stands dismissed by the order impugned dated 11.6. 09. Hence, this appeal.

The appeal preferred by the assessee was admitted by a coordinate Bench of this court, vide order dated 11.8.10 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether while passing the impugned order dated 11.06.2009, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has misconstrued the purport meaning and effect of the earlier order dated 17.11.2006?”

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that ITAT has seriously erred in rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order passed by the CIT, granting the registration under Section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.05 instead of w.e.f. 1.4.02, as applied for. Learned counsel submitted that in the similarly situated cases, the ITAT had condoned the delay in making the application for registration and therefore, there was no justification for rejecting the application of the appellant for the grant of registration w.e.f. 1.4.02 as prayed for. Learned counsel would submit that as a matter of fact, the controversy involved in this appeal stands covered by a Bench decision of this court dated 18.3.08 rendered in “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.U.M.S., Jaisalmer”, (2011) 331 ITR, 135. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submitted that the controversy involved in the present appeal stands covered by the decision of this court in K.U.M.S., Jaisalmer's case (supra) and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

A bare perusal of the order passed by the ITAT dated 17.11.06 reveals that while allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee and 3 setting aside the order passed by the CIT, Udaipur, denying the registration to the appellant as applied for, no restriction was imposed by the ITAT that the appellant shall be granted registration w.e.f. 1.4.05 instead of w.e.f. 1.4.02, as applied for, and therefore, ignoring the earlier order, the order impugned passed by the ITAT refusing grant of registration from the date of inception of the Trust was not justified. Moreover, even according to the Revenue, the issue with regard to condonation of delay in making the application for registration deserves to be decided in favour of the Revenue in light of Bench decision of this court in K.U.M.S., Jaisalmer's case (supra). In this view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned passed by the ITAT, confirming the order passed by the CIT refusing the registration to the appellant under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.02 is set aside. The CIT, Udaipur is directed to grant the registration to the appellant under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.02, while condoning the delay in making the application for registration. No order as to costs. (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/