VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,BELGAUM vs. CIT, BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8/Bang/2016 Assessment year : N.A. Visvesvaraya Technological University, The Commissioner of Jnana Ganga Campus, Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions), Belagavi. Bengaluru. PAN : AAAJV 0064 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri. M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Standing Assessee by Counsel & Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, I.T.P Revenue by : Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 15.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 28/01/2021, passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in ITA No.825/2018. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. In the first round of appeal the assessee raised following grounds before this Tribunal against order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), dated 08/12/2015: 1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(E)] under section 12A of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the I-T Act), to the extent it is not retrospective in effect, is arbitrary, erroneous, unreasonable and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law.

Page 2 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 2. The learned CIT(E) has erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant's case is covered under the Proviso to section 12A(1)(a)(i) of the I-T Act, inasmuch as the Appellant had filed its first application for registration under section 12A of the Act on 25,05.1999 and clause (i) of the Proviso to section 12A(1)(a) stood attracted to its case. The learned CIT(E) has erred in not considering the fact that the 3. amendments to the VTU Act, which were wrongly insisted upon by the department as a precondition for grant of registration, had been enacted by the State Legislature with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 and, as the earlier applications filed by the Appellant were not considered favourably only for want of such amendments, registration under section 12A ought to be granted from the date from which the amendments are effective, and not prospectively. 4. The learned CIT(E) has erred in failing to appreciate that grant of registration from a prospective date would lead to miscarriage of justice and cause loss to the public at large, by resulting in an absurd situation where the income of the Appellant, which is a public institution, would be exempt from tax in the years to come, but taxable in earlier years, even though there has been no change in the charitable nature of its objectives or activities since its inception. 5. The learned CIT(E), having been satisfied, on the basis of the documents submitted to him, that the Appellant deserves to be treated for purposes of income-tax as a charitable trust, has erred in not granting registration to the Appellant University with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998, without bringing anything on record to show that the Appellant's objectives or activities were any different in earlier years. 3. This Tribunal disposed off above grounds, vide order dated 04/06/2018 as under: “6. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and from the careful perusal of the record, we find that undisputedly assessee is a University established by the Government of Karnataka on 01.04.1998 under an Act of the State Legislature i.e., VTU Act, 1994 for the purpose of ensuring proper and systematic instructions/training and research and development of engineering technology and allied sciences in the State of Karnataka and matters connected therewith. According to assessee, it has now 203 engineering colleges located throughout the State of Karnataka which are affiliated to the University and more than 4 lakh students are studying therein in various under graduate and post graduate courses including inter alia BE, B. Tech, B. Arch, ME, M. Tech, MBA and MCA. It is also an undisputed fact that assessee was granted recognition under section 80G of the Act on the ground that the University was exempted from income under section 10(23)(C)(iiiAB) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.1998 for a period of 5 years. The recognition was further renewed for 3 years w.e.f. 22.06.2004 to 31.03.2007. The recognition certificates are available at page 82 as Annexure II and at page 84 as Annexure III.

Page 3 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 The recognition under section 80G of the Act was further extended upto 31.03.2010 vide order dated 30.03.2007. The certificate is available at page No. 86 as Annexure IV of the compilation. The recognition under section 80G was extended by the Revenue timely on applications moved by the assessee for renewal of recognition. On the expiry of the period of recognition, the assessee moved a further application for renewal of recognition under section 80G of the Act on 01.04.2010 vide its application dated 28.04.2010. This application was rejected by the CIT and withdrew the recognition altogether by holding that the University was neither eligible for exemption under section 10(23)(C) nor for registration under section 12A of the Act. The order of the CIT was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that in terms of amendment made to section 80G(5)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009, registration already held by an assessee shall have automatic renewal unless specifically withdrawn by the CIT and the CIT could not take advantage of mistake committed by the assessee in making an application for renewal of registration when it was not required to do so. The Revenue went in appeal before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal. The High Court however gave a liberty to the department to initiate separate proceedings to issue notice providing opportunity of hearing and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law relating to withdrawal of recognition under section 80G of the Act vide its judgment dated 11.01.2013. Consequently, the CIT issued a show cause notice under section 293C of the Act and thereafter withdrew the recognition granted under section 80G of the Act with immediate effect on the ground that University did not have registration under section 12A and the Hon’ble High Court has also held in its judgment dated 10.12.2013 that University was not eligible for exemption under section 10(23)(C) of the Act. The recognition under section 80G was again granted to the assessee by the Revenue vide order dated 08.12.2015 w.e.f. 08.12.2015 having noted that registration under section 12AA was granted to the assesse. These facts are illustrated herein above only with an intention to understand the nature of activities undertaken by the assessee and also recognized by the Revenue though grant or non grant of recognition under section 80G is not an issue in dispute. 7. So far as registration under section 12A are concerned, we find that assessee has moved an application for registration under section 12A on 25.05.1999 seeking registration from 01.04.1998 from the inception of the University. But this application was not taken cognizance by the CIT and it was kept pending with him. Thereafter, assesse has wrote a letter to the CIT vide letter dated 21.02.2002 requesting him to grant registration w.e.f. 01.04.1998 as the delay in application dated 25.05.1999 was only for 2 months which may kindly be condoned since the University was initially in the stage of setting up and formation. The copies of these letters are placed on record as Annexure 10 at page 128 and as Annexure 11 at page 133 of the compilation of the assessee. During the course of hearing, the learned DR has disowned the application form filed on 25.05.1999 with the submission that it was

Page 4 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 never filed before the CIT. Since the acknowledging authority of both the applications and letter dated 21.02.2002 was same, we asked the assessee to file the original copies of these documents. Original letter dated 21.02.2002 was filed during the course of hearing and the same was also confronted to the DR. At that time, the learned DR could not controvert the receipt of this letter. The acknowledging authority of the letter and application is the same, therefore, contention of learned DR that this application was never filed by the assessee cannot be accepted. Accordingly, we hold that assessee has filed the first application for registration under section 12A of the Act on 25.05.1999 which was never acted upon by the CIT despite the reminder on 21.02.2002. Had the CIT not received that application for registration under section 12A of the Act, he could have responded to the letter dated 21.02.2002 filed for the grant of registration under section 12A on the basis of their application dated 25.05.1999. The learned Counsel for the assessee has emphatically argued that instead of adjudicating its application for registration dated 25.05.1999, the Revenue persuaded the assessee to file a fresh application and accordingly the assessee has filed a fresh application for registration on 26.05.2012 claiming registration. This application was rejected on some technical grounds that the assessee could not file certain documents and the assessee was again persuaded by the Revenue to file another application for registration and accordingly, the assessee has filed an application for registration on 05.11.2014. The CIT asked the assessee that there are certain provisions to be incorporated in the VTU Act. Though it was incorporated but it was not adopted in the Legislature and assent was not granted by the Governor of the State. Since the application was to be disposed off within a specific period of time, the assessee was again persuaded to withdraw the application and file a fresh one as and when the amendment is incorporated in the Act and assent was granted by the Governor of the State. The assessee accordingly withdrew the application. The amendments approved by the University’s Executive Council on 24.11.2012 were eventually adopted by both the houses of the State Legislature with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 and received the assent of Hon’ble Governor of Government of Karnataka on 01.08.2015. The Government of Karnataka has notified the same as a VTU Amendment Act 2015 (Amendment Act). Within a week of the amendment being enacted, the University filed its 4th application in form No. 10A before the learned CIT on 25.08.2015 seeking registration with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998. Copy of the application is placed on record at page 172 as Annexure 22. The relevant requisite documents were filed along with this application with a specific request for grant of registration with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998. The learned CIT vide its order dated 31.08.2015 asked the assessee to furnish some more documents and accordingly the requirements was complied with and the CIT, after making detailed investigation and enquiry, was convinced with the activities of the assesses and finally granted the registration to the assesseee but only from prospective dated w.e.f. 01.04.2016 without recording any reasons for not acceding the University’s request for grant of registration w.e.f.

Page 5 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 01.04.1998. The registration certificate granted by the CIT is available on record at page 241 of the compilation as Annexure 29. The correspondence and the evidence submitted by the CIT is also placed on record at page 174 to 240. 8. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT, the assessee is before us with the submission that at no point of time, the activities undertaken by the assessee were never doubted by the Revenue. The registration under section 12A was denied to the assessee on technical grounds whereas the recognition under section 80G was granted to the assessee since the inception of the University till 30.05.2014 when it was withdrawn by the CIT. 9. Keeping in view the facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the assessee’s own case while adjudicating the issue, whether assessee is entitled for exemption under section 10(23)(c)(iiiAB) of the Act, has held “There can, however no manner of doubt the surplus accumulated over the years has ploughed back for educational purposes. In such situation, following the consistent principles laid down by this court referred to earlier and specifically what has been said in paragraphs 19 in Queen’s educational (supra), extracted above, it must be held that first requirement of section 10(23)(C)(iiiB), namely, that appellant University exist “solely for an educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit is satisfied. The exemption granted in respect of University under section 80G of the Act, qua the donations made to it also cannot be ignored in view of inbuilt recognition in such exemption with regard to charitable nature of the institution i.e., appellant University”. Copy of the judgment is available at page Nos.413 to 419 of the compilation. 10. We have also examined the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Annapoorneshwari Trust (2015) 53 Taxmann.com 527 (Karnataka) in which it has been held that once the object of trust is fulfilled, the trust cannot be denied the benefit under section 12AA. If there are deviations it is open to the authorities to take appropriate action. But that cannot be ground for denying registration under section 12AA of the Act. In that case, assessee was engaged in educational activities and their Lordship have held “where the entire objects of the Trust is clearly set out, the number of classes conducted by the Trust and also the fact that there 80% persons who constitute teaching and non teaching staff in the said institution………..” 11. In the case of CIT Vs. RMS Trust, 326 ITR 310, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held that condition precedent mentioned for registration under section 12A is that the application for registration should be made in time and the account of institution should be audited and enquiry into object of institution cannot be made under section 12A. The production of amended trust deed is not a pre-requisite and it is also not a pre-requisite condition for registering the applicant as a trust. The relevant catch note is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: “Where while considering the assessee trust’s application under section 12A the Commissioner noticed that the requisite clause indicating that any amendment to the trust deed would be carried out after obtaining approval from the Commissioner, had not been

Page 6 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 incorporated, and on that ground directed the assessee-trust to file an amended deed, which was duly registered, along with notes on the activities of the trust with regard to various expenses debited in the income and expenditure account, the requisition made by the Commissioner was an extra-statutory requisition and the Tribunal rightly set aside the Commissioner’s order rejecting the application for registration and remanded matter to him.” 12.Similarly, in the case of New Life in Christ Evangelistic Associaiton (NLC) Vs. CIT [2000] 111 Taxman 16 (Mad.), the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that “at the stage of grant of certificate under section 12A, the only enquiry which could possibly be made would be whether the Society has actually made an application in time and whether the accounts of society can be maintained in the manner as suggested by the sub section. Beyond that, the scope of enquiry would not go. In insisting upon the society in changing or amending its bye laws and refusing to consider the application on the ground that those bye laws had not been changed so as to exclude the religious aspect from those bye-laws, the Commissioner had clearly over-stepped his limits”. In the case of CIT Vs. State Urban Development Agency [2013] 37 taxmann.com 193 (Allahabad), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has held “Non- maintenance of accounts properly could not be reason for denying registration under section 12A, particularly when accounts, management, control, etc., of assessee were fully controlled by State Government. Where a trust/institution fulfils all conditions mentioned in section 12A/12AA, registration cannot be denied on ground that some conditions of sections 11 and 12 are not fulfilled”. The reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jindal Open University [2013] 38 taxmann.com 366 (P&H) in which it has been held that University is a body corporate and established for the cause of education. It is, thus, a Institution eligible for registration within the meaning of Section 12AA of the Act. In the earlier writ petition, a categorically finding has been recorded that the university has been established solely for educational purpose and not for profit therefore, it is a charitable institution r.w.s. 15(2) of the Act”. Further reliance was placed upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of PIMS Medical & Education Charitable Society Vs. CIT reported at [2013] 31 taxmann.com 371 (Chandigarh – Trib.) in which it has been held that it is incumbent upon Commissioner to decide issue of granting or decline of registration only within statutory period as laid down under section 12A r.w.s. 12AA of the Act. Satisfaction of statutory conditions of sections 11, 12 and 13 is not relevant for purpose of grant of registration under section 12A r.w.s. 12AA. He should satisfy himself only about genuineness of activities of trust in accordance with its objects and not about credential, capacity and qualification, etc., of trust. 13.Our attention was also invited to judgments of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society for promotion of education [2016] 67 Taxmann.com 264 (SC.) in which their Lordship have held that where the application for registration is not responded to within six months, application for registration was deemed to have been taken effect from the end of the 6

Page 7 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 month from the date of filing of application. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: “3. The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered under the provision. 4. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, has raised an apprehension that in the case of the respondent, since the date of application was of 24.02.2003, at the worst, the same would operate only after six months from the date of the application. 5. We see no basis for such an apprehension since that is the only logical sense in which the judgment could be understood. Therefore, in order to disabuse any apprehension, we make it clear that the registration of the application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act in the case of the respondent shall take effect from 24.08.2003. 6. Subject to the above clarification and leaving all other questions of law open, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.” 14. On the point of delay in filing of application, the learned Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karnataka Golf Association Vs. Director of Income-tax reported at [2014] taxmann.com in which their Lordship has held, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Infrastructure Development reported at 334 ITR 269 and Concorde of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi 118 ITR 507 that condonation of delay should be allowed where public interest is involved. 15.Turning to the facts of the case, we find that assessee has moved an application for registration under section 12A on 25.05.1999, but this application was not disposed of by the CIT and it was kept pending and assessee was persuaded by the Revenue to file another application for registration. Vide letter dated 21.01.2002, the assessee has also requested the CIT to grant registration under section 12A on the basis of its application filed on 25.05.1999 w.e.f. 01.04.1998 and delay in filing of application for registration of less than 2 months may kindly be condoned. This application of the assessee was also not adjudicated upon by the CIT. Other applications for registration under section 12A was rejected by the CIT on technical grounds despite the fact that at the relevant point of time, assessee was enjoying the recognition under section 80G of the Act. Subsequently, the registration under section 12A was granted to the assessee after making a detailed verification of the records and enquiry. At no point of time, the Revenue has made out a case that assessee was not engaged in educational activities. Assessee is a university established by the Government of Karnataka and Act of State Legislature i.e., VTU Act, 1994, for the purpose of ensuring proper and systematic instructions, teaching, training and research & development of engineering technology and allied sciences in the state of Karnataka and matters connected therewith. Even the Apex Court, while

Page 8 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 adjudicating the issue of exemption under section 10(23)(c)(IIIAB) of the Act, has categorically observed in para 9 of its judgment that the surplus accumulated over the period has been ploughed back for the educational purposes and the University exists solely for the educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit. The contention of the assessee that as of now 203 engineering colleges located throughout the state of Karnataka are affiliated to the assessee university and more than 4 lakh students are studying in various under graduate and post graduate course are not disputed by the Revenue. The registration was finally granted to the assessee under section 12A w.e.f. 01.04.2016 without recording the reasons for not acceding to the university’s request for grant of registration with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 though assessee has specifically requested for registration in his application. Till date, the Commissioner has not adjudicated the application for registration under section 12A filed on 25.05.1999. They have chosen to remain silent on this application. During the course of hearing, the Revenue could not answer the query of the Bench as to why this application was not disposed off. The Revenue cannot take the benefit of its own wrong. As per the provisions of section 12AA, which was brought on statute by the Finance Act, 1996 w.e.f. 01.04.1997, all applications filed before 1st day of June 1998 shall stand transferred on that day to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner may proceed to such application under that sub section from the stage at which they were on that day and as per provisions of sub section 2 of sub section 12AA, every order granting or refusing registration under clause (b) of sub section 1 shall be passed before the expiry of 6 months from the end of the month in which the application was received under section 12A of the Act. As per provisions of section 12A (i)(a), application for registration of trust or institution in the prescribed form should be filed within a period of one year from the date of creation of the trust or the establishment or the institution. Undisputedly, the trust was created on 01.04.1998 and application was moved on 25.05.1999. There was delay of 1 month 25 days for which assessee has moved an application requesting therein that the delay may be condoned and registration may be granted from the date of its inception. Though the Revenue was required to dispose off the application for registration under section 12A within a period of 6 months but it was not done. In the light of these facts and the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society for promotion of Education (supra), the registration is deemed to have been granted from the date of inception of the University as the delay in filing of the application was only 1 month and 25 days for which request for condonation of delay was moved. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT and direct him to grant registration w.e.f. 01.04.1998. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.”

Page 9 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 4. Against the order of this Tribunal dated 04/06/2018, the revenue preferred appeal before Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in ITA No. 825/2018. Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 28/01/2021 remitted the issue back to the file of Tribunal to decide afresh by observing as under: “2. The facts of the case reveals that the respondent- Institution Visveswaraya Technological University, Belagavi is an Educational Institution running large number of Colleges in Karnataka and other parts of Karnataka has preferred an application under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) seeking exemption. Another application was preferred under Section 12A of the Act on 25.05.1999. The assessee has filed third application for grant of exemption under Section 80G. The facts reveals that the institution was granted exemption under Section 80G for a period w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2003. It was renewed later on from 22.06.2004 to 31.03.2007 and further renewed from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2007, the only issue which is in dispute is in respect of the application preferred under Section 12A of the Act. The assessee contended before the Department as he has submitted an application on 25.05.1999 and by virtue of provisions of Section 12AA of the Act as the application filed was not decided within a period of six months, there is a deemed approval of application which was submitted by the assessee. 3. The matter went up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has accepted the contentions of the assessee and has held that the registration is deemed to have been granted in respect of the application preferred under Section 12A of the Act dated 25.05.1999. 4. Learned counsel for the Department has filed certain documents before this Court on 13.08.2019 along with an affidavit and the original application allegedly submitted by the assessee before the Tribunal was brought on record. His contention is that so called application (Form No.10A) bears the seal of Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT' for short) and the subsequent application also preferred by the assessee on 21.02.2002 bears the seal of CIT, Belagavi. His contention

Page 10 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 is that office of CIT, Belagavi did not exist at the relevant point of time and it came into existence only in June, 2001. He further contends that the assessee could not have filed the application without existence of the office and this aspect has not been looked into by the Tribunal. 5. Looking into the substantial question of law and after hearing of the learned counsel for the parties as the factum of submission of application has not been considered by the Tribunal, it is the assessee who has established that he has submitted an application under Section 12A of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law and facts in accepting the genuineness of application. 6. Resultantly, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal and the parties shall be free to place all documents and shall be free to put forth their contentions in respect of the aforesaid issue.” 5. Further from the records, we note that, the assessee preferred SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Nos.20876-20878 arising out of the order of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court dated 28/01/2021. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04/01/2022 dismissed the SLP by observing as under:

Page 11 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

Page 12 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 part of original records, as under: 6.1. During the course of hearing that started on 24/03/2022 and ended on 24/06/2022, Ld.Counsel for the assessee filed following Paper books containing written submissions and synopsis of the hearings on various dates before this Tribunal: Sl. Date of Document filed No Filing Paper-book - Compilation of documents along with ‘Prayer for admission of Additional Evidences’ and ‘Prayer for admission of PB-01 1. Additional Grounds of Appeal’. A Copy of this 21-03-2022 Paper-Book was handed over to the Ld.Counsel for the Revenue earlier on 19/03/2022. Synopsis of the hearing on 23/03/2022 & Note on the documents obtained under the PB-02 2. RTI Act. Copy served on the Learned 31-03-2022 Revenue’s Counsel on 31-03-2022 during the hearing before the Hon’ble Bench. Prayer for directions to the Revenue to PB-03 confirm the oral submissions made by the 3. 13-05-2022 Ld.Counsel on 21-03-2022, 31-03-2022 & 20-04-2022 in writing by filing an Affidavit. Synopsis of the Hearings on 31/03/2022 PB-04 and 20/04/2022. Copy served on the 4. 17-05-2022 Learned Revenue’s Counsel on the same day on 17-05-2022. Paper-book containing written submissions PB-05 5. incorporating scanned copies of various 01-06-2022 documents filed. Paper-book containing synopsis of the hearing on 03-06-2022 and counter PB-06 6. submissions on the written submissions of 09-06-2022 the Revenue filed during the hearing on 03- 06-2022. 6.2. The Ld.Standing Counsel for Revenue filed following paper books containing written submissions on at the time of hearing before this Tribunal:

Page 13 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Sl. No Date of Filing Document filed Documents filed by the revenue that was also filed before 1. PB dated 17/02/2021 Hon’ble High Court in ITA No. 825/2018. Written Submission by the Revenue 2. PB dated 03/06/2022 along with various decisions 7. Now in the present proceeding, the Hon’ble High Court remanded the appeal to this Tribunal for limited purpose to examine the factual position regarding the alledged application u/s.12A of the Act in Form No.10A dated 25-05-1999, that is reproduced herein above. “5. Looking into the substantial question of law and after hearing of the learned counsel for the parties as the factum of submission of application has not been considered by the Tribunal, it is the assessee who has established that he has submitted an application under Section 12A of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law and facts in accepting the genuineness of the application. 6. Resultantly, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal and the parties shall be free to place all documents and shall be free to put forth their contentions in respect of the aforesaid issue. 7. …………………… 8. …………………… 9. The Department shall be free to file fresh appeal after the matter is decided by the Tribunal arising all the issues afresh including other issues raised in the present appeal.” 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the certified copies of the alleged application u/s.12A of the Act, in Form No.10A dated 25/05/1999 and the reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 were identified & obtained under the RTI Act, vide letter dated, 07/07/2021. In support, he relied on the observations in the order dated 04/06/2018 passed by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the first round of appeal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, Form

Page 14 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 No.10A dated 25/05/1999 and the reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002, are the two documents that the revenue submits, of not available on their record, before the Hon’ble High Court. 8.1. The Ld.Standing Counsel for the assessee in this context submitted as follows: (i). The copies of the application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 and the reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 filed by the Appellant before the Hon’ble Tribunal in the earlier proceedings have been placed in the records/files and the photocopies of the same documents have been made available under the RTI Act. (ii). The photocopies of the above-mentioned documents are available in general folder and there is no specific folder opened in the name of the Appellant University to place the application u/s 12A at any point of time and supply of copies of such documents under the RTI Act does not establish the factum of submission of the said Application u/s 12A of the Act. 9. In order to verify the above contention, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to produce relevant case records that was subject matter of RTI information on the next date of hearing being 31- 03-2022 and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned. 9.1. In compliance to the Tribunal’s direction, the Revenue on 31-03-2022 produced related/subject case records before this Tribunal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee explained how the disputed documents, being the alleged Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 and the reminder letter dated 21/02/2002, came to be traced in the Revenue’s own Folders under the RTI Act. It was submitted that, the Revenue filed IA No/3 before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court during the pendency of its Appeal and the Letter of the PCIT, Belagavi, dated 04/09/2018, annexed to the said IA, which revealed that, the CIT(E), Bengaluru,

Page 15 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 received case records of the assessee in 15 FOLDERS from the said PCIT, Belagavi, way back in 2015, vide Letter dated 20/05/2015, even though, both officers denied access to these Folders/Documents in their earlier RTI replies in 2019 stating that ‘the records are Not traceable/available’. 9.2. It is observed that, the subject case records, containing the said Application u/s.12A and other disputed documents, were received by the CIT(E), Bengaluru, on 20/05/2015, before filing of the appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal on 05/01/2016. 9.3. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee the submitted that the alleged documents were available in Revenue’s own Folders as under: Reference of the serial number in the transfer Sl. memo/letter Name/Title of Document available in the Folder No. dated, the folder 20-05-2019 of the office of the PCIT, Belagavi A copy of the application under 12A dated, 25/05/1999 in Form No 10A along with its annexures are available in the folder titled, ‘12A Folder - F/NO.57/CIT-BGM/2001-02’ received from the PCIT Belagavi. (a). The TITLE of the Folder, 12A Folder- ‘12AFolder...........' is significant; it 1 7 F/No.57/CIT- demonstrates that the Folder was BGM/2001-02 opened way back in FY 2001-02 specifically to record the proceedings u/s 12A of the Act on receipt of the copy of the said Application dated, 25/05/1999, which is an unassailable proof that the Application was filed and it is also

Page 16 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 available on record. The word ‘CIT- BGM’ appearing in the TITILE signifies that the Folder was opened and maintained by the CIT, Belagavi on receipt of the copy of the said Application. (b). It is also significant to note that a Copy of the said Application u/s 12A along with the Annexures is on record; it was filed as a follow-up, since it was NOT acted upon, but kept pending. (c). It is pertinent to note that the Application us/80G dated, 08/10/1998, was kept pending beyond the statutory period of SIX MONTHS and recognition was granted only on 18/07/2002, after more than 3 years from the date of Application, as explained in the later part of these submissions. The Applications of the University filed u/s 80G as well as u/s 12A was kept pending BEYOND the statutory time limit of 6 months and the Application u/s 80G was alone acted upon and recognition was granted as aforesaid, but the Application u/s 12A was kept pending. Copy of Letter of VTU in in No. Ref.No./VTU/98-99 dated 25/03/1999 filed on 27/02/2002 in the office of CIT, Belgaum, but addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa along with Application in Form No. 10G dated, 08/10/1998 attested by Finance 80G Application Officer, VTU along with Govt. Of 2 9 dated, 27-02- Karnataka Notification dated, 2002 of VTU 25/03/1998 (attested copy). (a). The Application u/s 80G dated, 08/10/1998 had remained unattended for more than 3 years in spite of follow up and therefore, this letter was filed as a remainder to issue the recognition. The CIT granted the Registration u/s 80G retrospectively from 01/04/1998 on

Page 17 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 the basis of this Application only on 27/02/2002. The CIT’s order dated, 27/02/2002, granting recognition u/s 80G refers to the said Application dated, 08/10/1998 and therefore, the authenticity of this application and the follow-up letters cannot be disputed. (b). It is significant to note that this remainder dated, 25/05/1999 was filed, since the Application u/s 80G was filed on 08/10/1998 remained unattended. A copy of this letter was again filed on 27/02/2002 since the said Application remained to be disposed of. (c). Reference to the Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999, which had also remained unattended, was made in this letter. (d). It is also significant to note the date of this Application i.e.,25/05/1999; the date on which the disputed Application u/s 12A was made. It shows that this remainder letter u/s 80G with reference to the pending Application dated 08/10/1998 was filed and, SIMULTANEOUSLY, an application u/s 12A was made. (e). It is pertinent to note that, even though the very same CIT granted recognition u/s 80G on the basis of the earlier Application as afore- submitted, no action was taken on the Application dated,25/05/1999 filed u/s 12A even after submitting a remainder dated, 21/02/2002, which is referred to in Sl. No 4 below. (f). It also pertinent to note that the Appellant University had filed an Affidavit from Sri. Mallikarjun P Bagali, the then Registrar of the University, on factum of submission of Application u/s 12A and also the letter dated, 25/05/1999 before the Hon’ble High

Page 18 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Court in the statement of objections filed on 24/10/2019 against IA No.4/2019 of the Revenue, even before TRACING of these documents under the RTI Act. Letter dated 26/05/2012 bearing Ref. No.VTU/Reg./12A (a)/2012/214-A filed by the VTU u/s 12A. (a). The chronology of events subsequent to filing of this fresh Application u/s 12A is discussed in para-4 of pages 4 & 5 of the original order of the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Application was rejected by the CIT vide order dated, 26/12/2012 and the Appeal against the same also came to be rejected by the Hon’ble For registration ITAT, Panaji, Goa, vide order dated, u/s 12A 19/09/2013. maintained by 3 2 (b). This letter refers to the earlier O/o.ACIT, Application filed u/s 12A stating that Circle-I, the reference was not readily Belgavi. available; shows that the Application u/s 12A was filed earlier, which was obviously on 25/05/1999. (c). This Folder is part of the 15 FOLDERS received by the CIT(E), Bengaluru, as per the Transfer Memo dated, 20/05/2015 of the PCIT, Belagavi as revealed in the letter dated, 04/09/2018 of the PCIT, Belagavi, which was filed by the Revenue before the Hon’ble High Court vide IA No.3/2019. Letter dated, 21/02/2002 and 22/02/2002 in Ref. No. VTU/FO/2002-03/8883 addressed to VTU folder – the Commissioner of Income Tax, Registration Panaji, but filed in Belgaum on us/ 12A/80G 27/02/2002 along with Income and date of Expenditure Account for the Year 4 8 application ending 31/03/1999, 31/03/2000 & 22/02/2002 31/03/2001. O/o ACIT, (a). This letter is available on record Circle-I, in ORIGINAL bearing INWARD SEAL Belgavi. of the Department. This is the Letter, apart from the said Application u/s 12A, which was/is alleged to have been never filed, but manipulated.

Page 19 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Since the ORIGINAL letter is on record, it completely disproves the allegations of the Revenue that it was manipulated. (b). The Appellant had filed an Affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court in the statement of objections dated, 24/10/2019 against Revenue’s IA No.4/2019, much before retrieval of the document under the RTI Act on 07/07/2021. The Affidavit was sworn to by Sri R. Ramachandra Swamy, the then Finance Officer of the University, who had signed the document in question, confirming the authenticity of the document. (c). It is also significant to note the title of the Folder ‘VTU folder- Registration u/s 12A/80G……’, which reveals that the Folder was opened by the earlier AO at Belagavi specifically to place Applications filed by the University u/s 12A & 80G. 10. The Ld.Standing Counsel for the Revenue, in rejoinder referred to the submission of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that, ‘the seals on the documents are new and these documents are inserted in the Folders’ subsequently. In respeonse, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Revenue should confirm its submissions by filing an Affidavit and subsequently, a prayer was made in writing to that effect before the Tribunal on 13/05/2022 seeking such directions to the Revenue. 10.1. Responding to the above submission of the Ld.Standing Counsel, for the assessee drew our attention to the scanned copy of Annexure to the RTI reply dated, 07/07/2021, at page 9 of the Paper book-05, filed on 01/06/2022. He submitted that, the Folder is listed in the said Annexure at Sl.No.1. He submitted that from the letter and the Annexure to the said letter by the

Page 20 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Revenue, it could be seen that, this Folder was received from the Office of the PCIT, Belagavi vide letter (Transfer Memo) dated, 20/05/2015 in F.No.91/Exemptions/Pr.CIT/BGV/2015-16/259, and the same is listed in S.No.7 of the said letter of the PCIT. Reference was also made to the title of the Folder which is demonstrative proof that the Folder was opened in the FY 2001- 02 by the CIT, Belagavi to place the alleged application u/s 12A filed on 25/05/1999. It was emphasized that the words, “12A Folder………” appearing in the title, signify that, the Folder was specifically opened to place the alleged Application of the assessee u/s 12A way-back in FY 2001-02. It was submitted that, the contention of the Ld.Standing Counsel for the Revenue that, it was created at the Office of the CIT(E), Bengaluru was therefore incorrect, and misleading. 10.2. Subsequently, during the course of hearing on 03/06/2022, the Ld.Standing Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Folder titled “12A Folder-F/No.57/CIT- BGM/2001-02”, in which the alleged Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 was said to have been traced & retrieved under the RTI Act, was created at Bengaluru Office of the CIT(E) by placing a photocopy of the alleged application, which was filed by the assessee before this Tribunal during the first round of proceedings, and that, its retrieval under the RTI Act, therefore, did not establish the fact of submission of the alleged application. 10.3. Ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to the scanned copy of the alleged application u/s.12A dated, 25/05/1999 being assessee’s copy bearing the acknowledgement of the revenue, which is alleged to have never been filed, is as under:

Page 21 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

10.4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to the above document submitted as under: (i) That the Copy of the above alleged Application is available on record of the Revenue in the Folder opened in the name of the assessee in F.Y:2001-02 itself, titled, ‘Visveswaraya Technological University’, assigning Folder No. F.No.57/CIT-BGM/2001-02. It may be noted that the Folder even mentions PAN of the University – AAAJV0064F and also the address – “Jnana Sangama”, Campus, Belgaum. The scanned Copy of the said Folder, retrieved under the RTI Act, is as under:

Page 22 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

(ii) That the Copy of the said Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999, available in the above said Folder in the custody of the Revenue, is as under:

Page 23 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

(iii) That the above document i.e., Copy of the Application u/s 12A filed by the assessee, available in the said folder of the Revenue, which is supplied to the assessee vide letter dated 07/07/2021 by the CIT(E), Bengaluru, under the RTI Act and the documents supplied are listed in the Annexure to the said letter, read with Corrigendum dated, 12/07/2021. The said

Page 24 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Corrigendum/Annexure is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference.

(iv) That the said Corrigendum to the letter mentions that these documents, supplied under the RTI Act, are part of the records in

Page 25 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 the Folders received by the CIT(E), Bengaluru, from the PCIT, Belagavi as per the said Transfer Memo dated, 20/05/2015 in F.No.91 /Exemptions/Pr.CIT/BGV/2015-16/259. It also lists the Sl.No assigned to the Folder in the said letter of the PCIT, Belagavi, apart from specifying the name /title of the Folder. 10.5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to scanned copy of the reminder letter produced by the assessee before this Tribunal during the first round of proceedings, which is alleged by the revenue to have never been filed, is as under:

Page 26 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 10.6. He submitted that the Copy of the said document/letter dated, 21/02/2002, is available in the Revenue’s record, as under:

Page 27 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 10.7. It was submitted by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that, the copy available in the Revenue’s records is original letter filed by the assessee, and that the assessee’s copy of the letter bears the seal of the Revenue acknowledging its receipt on 27/02/2002. He submitted that, copy available in the Revenue’s record also bears the same date of receipt i.e., 27/02/2002, with the inward seal of the revenue affixed, which is not a mere coincidence, but an unassailable proof that the Letter was filed with the authorities on 27/02/2002, triggering consequential actions by Revenue at Belagavi, including opening of a specific Folder in the name of the University titled, “VTU folder- Registration u/s 12A/80G, date of application 22/02/2002 O/o ACIT, Circle-1, Belagavi” to place the same. 10.8. It was also submitted that, the above said letters were filed reminding the pending applications u/s.80G and 12A respectively dated, 08/10/1998 and 25/05/1999. Hence, the copies of earlier correspondence were filed along with the letter as mentioned in the above letter itself. It is mentioned as: “Copy to the Deputy Commissioner of I.T Circle-2, Belgaum along with the copies of previous correspondence with a request to issue certification”. 10.9. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee thus submitted that, the assessee had filed a copy of the letter dated 25/05/1999 before the CIT, Belagavi, in connection with the Application u/s 80G dated 08/10/1998, which was pending unattended. He submitted that in this letter, reference to this Application u/s 12A, was made which was pending unattended. 11. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, when the Revenue made allegations of manipulation of the said Application

Page 28 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 and the Reminder Letter dated 21/02/2002 before the Hon’ble High Court during the, assessee filed a copy of this letter vide statement of objections dated 24/10/2019, against IA No. 4/2019 of the Revenue, along with the Affidavit of Sri Mallikarjuna P Bagali, who had signed the said letter in his capacity as the Registrar of the assessee at the relevant time i.e., on 25/05/1999. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, a copy of this letter was addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji Goa, and was filed in the Office of the CIT, Belgaum and this Letter being the assessee’s Copy bears the seal of acknowledgment mentioning the date of receipt/filing as 27/07/2002. A scanned Copy of the said letter Copy is as under:

Page 29 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

11.1. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further stated that, this letter is available in the Revenue’s own records in the folder titled ‘80G Application dated 27/02/2002 of VTU’, which is unearthed and retrieved by the Legal Advisor of the assessee during the inspection of the case records under the RTI Act. A scanned copy of this letter, available in the Revenue’s records, is as under:

Page 30 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

11.2. The Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that, on a plain reading of the said letter dated 25/05/1999, it is clear that, the revenue received the letter on 27/02/2002 in the Office of the CIT, Belagavi and acknowledged its receipt by affixing the office seal with date i.e., 27/02/2002. He also submitted that copy of this letter (scanned and reproduced herein above), available in the Folders/Case records of the Revenue, and bears the inward seal with the same date of receipt.

Page 31 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 11.3. It is submitted that the CIT, Belagavi, issued the recognition u/s 80G vide Order dated18/07/2002 on the basis of the application filed in Form No.10G dated, 08/10/1998 and the subsequent reminders/letters mentioned hereinabove. Copy of the said order u/s 80G dated, 18-07-2002, is scanned and reproduced below:

Page 32 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

Page 33 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 11.4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that, this order refers to assessee’s application in Form No.10G dated 08/10/1998, which clearly shows that this Application, though filed on 08/10/1998, was kept pending unattended and acted up on only after filing of the said Reminder letter dated 21/02/2002 by issuing the Certification u/s 80G on 18/07/2002. But the alleged application u/s 12A, dated 25/05/1999, remained unattended in spite of the reminders. 11.5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the application u/s 10G dated 08/10/1998 was acted upon and the recognition u/s 80G was granted vide order dated, 18/07/2002, on the basis of this reminder vide letter dated, 21/02/2002. He submitted that, on one hand the Revenue, alleges that this letter was manipulated, however, on the other hand, the revenue concedes the availability of the alleged application, in its written submissions filed during the hearing on 03/06/2022 copy of which was handed over to the Ld.AR which is unsigned & undated. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referred to para 14 of the written submissions filed by the revenue as under: “14. The Contention of the assessee that letter dated 21/2/2002 at page number 59 of the paper book reflects filing of application for registration under section 12A of the Act and 80G of the Act and hence the application dated, 25/5/1999 is deemed to have been filed is incorrect. The said statement in the letter regarding filing of application under section 12A of the Act neither supported by any document nor such a statement would prove filing of application dated 25/5/1999. The said statement in the letter is irrelevant for the reason that the said letter also covered request for registration under section 80G of the Act on the basis of the provisions of section 10(23C) of the Act which was considered and certificate under 80G dated, 18/7/2002 was issued.” 11.6. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, as per the Revenue’s submissions, the letter dated 21/02/2002 was

Page 34 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 considered and 80G Certificate dated, 18/07/2002 was issued, which is an admission that the said reminder letter was filed. However, the Ld.Standing counsel for the revenue contends that, filing of the said reminder letter dated 21/02/2002 do not prove the filing of alleged application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999, even though a reference is made therein, regarding the alleged application u/s 12A. Further the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Revenue argued before this Tribuanl that this letter was manipulated, even though the original letter was available in its own records in the Folder marked, “VTU Folder- Registration u/s 12A/80G date of application 22/02/2002 O/o of ACIT, Circle-1, Belagavi”. He submitted that, filing of the alleged application cannot be disputed any more, and the noting on the letter also cannot be disputed. 11.7. It was submitted by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that, the Revenue had alleged before the Hon’ble High Court that the alleged application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 and the reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 were never filed before the Authorities, but manipulated. He drew our attention to Revenue’s IA No.2/2019 (copies of IA No.2 & 3/2019 are placed at 42 to 49 and 50 to 58B of the PB filed on 21-03-2022), filed in ITA No.825/2018 on 13/08/2019, seeking to amend the Memorandum of Appeal. The Revenue therein submitted in the Affidavit filed in IA No.3/2019 dated 13/08/2019 that alleged application dated 25/05/1999 and letter dated 21/02/2002 were never filed by the assessee on the even date, but were subsequently manipulated. For sake of ready reference, the relevant portion making allegation in the Affidavit filed by the

Page 35 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru in IA No.2 is reproduced as under: “4…………The comparison of the acknowledgment on the letter dated 4/12/2021 and acknowledgment on the disputed application dated 25/5/1999 and letter dated 21/2/2002, it is clear that the assessee has manipulated both the documents in order to make illegal claim of registration and consequential refunds.” 11.8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, from the Revenue’s own submission in this para (14), it is clear that the allegations of the Revenue as above-submitted before the Hon’ble High Court are factually incorrect and misleading. It is submitted that this fact requires to be viewed in the background of denial of information under the RTI Act by the Authorities i.e., CIT (Exemptions), Bengaluru as well as the PCIT, Belagavi, earlier in 2019 stating that, the case records were “not traceable”. Because, the disclosure of the information would have proved that the Revenue’s allegations of manipulation of the documents under reference are misplaced and misleading, if not false. A copy of the said Application u/s 12A in Form No. 10A dated 25/05/1999 along with other documents was filed annexed to the letter dated, 24/03/2004, in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi, requesting to renew the registration granted u/s 80G vide order dated18/07/2002. A scanned Copy of the said letter is as under:

Page 36 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

11.9. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the CIT(A) acknowledged the said letter in his Communication/letter dated 25/05/2004 and the abovesaid letter of the University is mentioned under “Reference” in this letter. The Ld.Counsel for

Page 37 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 the assessee further submitted that, the SEAL of the Department affixed on this letter acknowledging its receipt and the SEAL affixed on the Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999, is identical, which is explained in the later part of the submissions. A scanned Copy of the CIT’s response letter dated 25/05/2004 is as under:

Page 38 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

11.10. Further, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the said letter of the CIT(A) was served on the assessee by post and the postal cover bearing the details is preserved by the University. A closer examination of this postal cover reveals the year as “04”, meaning “2004”.

Page 39 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 A scanned Copy of the same is as under:

11.11. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, in the said letter of the CIT(A), Belagavi dated, 25/05/2004, the assessee was instructed to file fresh application u/s 80G in Form No.10G, since old Applications u/s 80G & 12A (25/05/1999) were enclosed to the letter dated, 24/03/2004 of the assessee.

Page 40 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 The University complied with the said instruction and filed the fresh Application u/s 10G vide letter dated, 17/06/2004. A scanned Copy of the letter is as under:

11.12. It is submitted that the CIT(A) issued the order u/s 80G dated, 12/08/2004 on the basis of the above said Application. A Copy of the said order u/s 80G is as under:

Page 41 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

Page 42 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

11.13. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the assessee had not only filed the said Application u/s 12A in Form

Page 43 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 No.10A dated 25/05/1999, but also pursued the matter with the Authorities by filing reminders as the said Application was kept pending. It is submitted that reference to the said pending Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 could not have been made in the reminder letter dated 21/02/2002 (apart from the references to it in other letters), which is now conceded to have been filed by the Revenue, if the said Application u/s 12A was not filed. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, it is pertinent to note that this letter dated, 21/02/2002 was filed requesting to dispose of the pending Application u/s 80G as well as 12A as indicated in the “subject” of the letter itself, which is as under: 11.14. It was submitted that the Revenue cannot contend that the said reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 was filed seeking registration u/s 12A as well as u/s80G on the basis of the pending Applications respectively dated, 25/05/1999 and 08/10/1998, but the said Application u/s 12A was not filed, especially in the factual matrix where the said Application u/s 12A came to be traced in the Revenue’s own Folders under the RTI Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the AO certified in the letter dated 25/03/2019, addressed to the Joint Director of Income Tax (Vigilance) that Application u/s 12A was filed by the University on 25/05/1999 seeking registration with effect from 01/04/1998 and, ‘No action was taken by CIT on 12A application dated 25/05/1999’. A scanned Copy of this letter traced and retrieved under the RTI Act is as under:

Page 44 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

Page 45 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

The Ld.Counsel for the assessee relying on the above letter submitted that, the alleged application u/s12A dated

Page 46 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 25/05/1999 was filed and the same was unattended, as is mentioned by the assessing officer himself furnishing the chronological events to his higher-ups. 12. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Revenue filed Third-party evidence in the form of a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax Belagavi, before the Hon’ble High Court in IA No.3/2019, contending that, the SEAL used during the relevant period was a square seal and the Department never used the seal appearing in the said Application u/s 12A, dated 25/05/1999, implying that the Application was not filed. A Copy of this Third-Party Evidence/letter is stated to have been filed on 04/12/2001 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi. During the course of hearing, the Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue referred to the same and argued that the said letter is a Third-Party assessee’s copy bearing the acknowledgement issued by the IT Department on 04/12/2001. On this basis, it was argued that the IT Department at Belagavi never used the seal as is appearing on the application u/s.12A dated, 25/05/1999. However, the Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue did not explain how the alleged application u/s.12A dated 25/05/1999 and other correspondence could find place in the records of the Revenue if they were not filed, except stating that ‘somehow they got inserted’. A scanned Copy of the said Third Party Evidence of the Revenue is as under:

Page 47 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

12.1. This was objected to by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee drawing attention of this Tribunal to the “instructions/noting”

Page 48 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 issued to the ITI (Income Tax Inspector) by the concerned Officer/CIT on the said letter itself and submitted that such instructions are to subordinate staff issued on the Department’s Copy, that demonstrate that, it was not a Third-Party assessee’s Copy as submitted by the Ld. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, but Revenue’s Copy, available in its record. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee thus submitted that the so-called Third-Party Evidence /letter was not assessee’s copy. It was submitted that, the seal on this letter is the inward seal of the Department, identical to the seal affixed on the letter of the University dated 21/02/2002, filed on 27/02/2002, and copy of another letter dated, 25/05/1999, filed on 27/02/2002, which are unearthed and retrieved under the RTI Act. 12.2. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Revenue has misread the said Third-Party document and misdirected by levelling the allegation that the IT Department had not used such seal as is appearing in the alleged application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999. It is also submitted that, this Revenue’s own Third-party evidence proves that the Revenue’s copy, commonly referred to as ‘Office Copy’, normally bears the inward seal of the I.T department. The Ld.Counsel submitted that, on careful examination of this seal shows that, the seal affixed on the letter dated, 25/05/1999 (copy scanned and reproduced above) filed in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi is identical, and that identical inward seal is also affixed on the letter of the University dated, 21/02/2002 and reproduced above. 12.3. The inward seal as appearing in the said Third Party evidence filed by the Revenue and the alleged letters dated

Page 49 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 21/02/2002 and alleged application dated 25/05/1999 of the University available in Revenue’s records are scanned and reproduced below: (only portion showing the INWARD SEAL from the said letters is reproduced.) Letter dated, 21/02/2002 filed on 27/02/2002. A copy of the letter dated, 25/05/1999 filed on 27/02/2002.

Co py of the Thi rd-party evidence relied by the Revenue

Page 50 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

12.4. It is submitted that, the assessee obtained a copy of the letter bearing No.CIT/BGM/Sumangaladevi/01-02, dated 12/03/2002 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Belgaum and it has a DISPATCH SEAL of the Department affixed on it, which is similar to the Seal affixed on the Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999. This letter was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax in connection with adjustment of seized cash in the case of one assessee being Smt.B.Sumangaladevi. A scanned Copy of the said letter is as under:

Page 51 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

The portion containing the Seal of the Department if enlarged and scanned, appears as under:

Page 52 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

12.5. It is submitted that there was dispute in the above said case of Smt. B. Sumangaladevi, which was taken up before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court regarding the adjustment of seized cash of Rs.10 lakhs reported in (2012) 26 taxmann 26, which demonstrates the authenticity of the above said letter dated, 12/03/2002. A copy of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court is placed at pages 61-73 of the Paper-book-05. It is submitted that, the assessee has obtained certain third-party evidences in the form of letters (15 in Nos.) filed with the IT Authorities in the Belagavi region bearing seal of acknowledgment issued to the those assessee’s. For the sake of ready reference, a few seals of acknowledgement are scanned and reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:

Sl. Details of Letter filed & Seal of acknowledgment No.

Page 53 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 1. Letter of B. Sunil Kumar dated, 27/11/2008 filed on 8/12/2008 the bearing acknowledgment of the Dispatch Clerk, O/o Additional CIT, Range 1, Belgaum.

Page 54 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

12.6. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee prayed for admission of additional evidences vide pages 212- 224 of the Paper book filed by the assessee on 23/03/2022. He submitted that, as could be seen from the Third-Party evidences filed by assessee, the IT Department has not been consistent in using seal of acknowledgment/ dispatch seal, used for inward Tapal also as is evidenced from the letters filed by the Shri. B. Sunil Kumar on 08/12/2008 and Shri. Sanjay Potdar on 07/07/2010. On the other hand, the acknowledgment on the letter of Shri. Basavaraj Bharamshetty is issued by the inward clerk, which is normally the practice followed. It is significant to note that abbreviation “O/o” is used for the words ‘OFFICE OF THE’. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that identical abbreviation “O/o” is used for ‘OFFICE OF THE’ in the seal affixed on the Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999. It is submitted that, the objection of the Revenue referring to the SEAL of acknowledgment on the Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 is too frivolous to require any counter response as the said Application is traced in the Revenue’s own Folder.

Page 55 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 12.7. It is submitted that the acknowledging authority on the alleged Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 and the reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 is identical, as observed by the Tribunal in its original order vide para 7 of page 11 dated 04/06/2018. It was submitted that the scanned copy of the letter dated, 25/05/1999 filed on 27/02/2002 and available in Revenue’s records has identical seal of acknowledgment affixed. At the cost of repetition, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the seal affixed on the alleged Application 12A dated 25/05/1999 acknowledging its filing is identical to the seal affixed on the letter of the University dated, 24/03/2004. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the Application u/s 12A for renewal of recognition u/s 80G, acknowledged by the CIT, Belagavi vide letter dated 25/05/2004. For the sake of convenience the Ld.Counsel for the assessee filed before us a graphically representation of the same as under:

University’s copy of Reminder Letter dated, 21- 02-2002, filed on 27-02- 2002; Original copy is traced in the Revenue’s record under the RTI Act.

Copy of letter dated, Identical to the 25/05/1999 filed on Seal on Seal of 27/02/2002; traced Acknowledgment Application in Revenue’s records on: under the RTI Act. u/s 12A dated, Note 1:

Page 56 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 25/05/1999 Please See Para Copy of University’s 5.1, 6.3 and 8.1 Letter dated, of this Paper-book 24/03/2004 wherein for scanned a copy of the copies. Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 Note 2: was enclosed & filed, Please see pages which was 83, 78 and 89 of acknowledged by the the Paper-book CIT, Belgaum vide dated, letter dated, 18/03/2022 filed 25/05/2004. on 21/03/2022. 12.8. It is submitted by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the Revenue is wrong in contending that the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Belgaum, not being in existence on 25/05/1999, and the question of issuing acknowledgement by way of affixing the office seal of the non-existing office on the application u/s 12A on 25/05/1999 did not arise, when, the alleged application u/s12A and reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 are available in Revenue’s records. In this context, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted as follows: (i). It is relevant to note that the assessing officer of the University (ACIT/DCIT) was always stationed at Belgaum, even when the O/o CIT was located at Panaji, Goa. The said Application u/s 12A was filed at IT Office, Belgaum, and in this context, it is relevant to note that the said Application is addressed to: “The Commissioner of Income Tax, BELGAUM, GOA.” It is also relevant to note that the said Application u/s 12A itself mentions “BELGAUM”, as it was filed in Belgaum though addressed to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Belgaum/Goa. (ii). The Tapal/Dak submitted by the Taxpayers of Belagavi region meant for CIT, Panaji could not have been acknowledged possibly by affixing the seal of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Panaji, Goa, as it would have meant that the letter was filed at Panaji. In order to maintain the distinction between the letters meant for CIT, Panaji filed at Belagavi and the letters filed at Panaji office, the Department itself has used the seal mentioning ‘BELGAUM’ for acknowledging the inward Tapal filed at Belgaum, but meant for CIT stationed at Panaji.

Page 57 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 (iii). As already submitted herein above, the Revenue has now conceded in the Written submissions filed during the hearing on 03/06/2022 (Para 14) that the reminder letter was filed and the same was acted upon by issuing the certificate u/s 80G dated, 18/07/2002. This admission, which also has seal of acknowledgment of the Revenue identical to the one affixed on the said Application u/s 12A. (iv). The Tapal/Dak submitted by the Taxpayers of Belagavi region meant for CIT, Panaji was being received at Income-tax Office, Belagavi at the relevant time. The Department had no standard “seal” prescribed under the Income-tax Act or Rules or even by CBDT. As could be seen from the reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 and a copy of letter dated, 25/05/1999 filed in the office of the Commissioner of Income- tax, Belagavi available in Revenue’s own records, the square seal is affixed only on the copy of the Department which is normally referred to as “Office copy”. For issuing acknowledgment to the Taxpayers in Belagavi region, the Department itself had issued a different seal at the relevant time IDENTICAL to the seal affixed on the Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999. 12.9. It was submitted that the Revenue’s contention regarding the seal of acknowledgement on the said Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 is frivolous and vexatious, when the alleged Application is available in the Revenue’s own records is wrong. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the Government of Karnataka appointed a Fact Finding Committee to enquire into affairs of the University, headed by Hon’ble Justice Shri.K.N.Keshavanarayana, retired Judge of the Hon’ble High Court, who reported its findings vide report dated 28/01/2016. He submitted that, a reference was made therein regarding the alleged application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 while enquiring into the reduction of corpus fund to insignificant levels from more than Rs.500 crores on account of coercive recovery of Rs.440 crores by the I.T Department. The observations are made on the said subject of reduction of corpus funds under the heading, ‘Allegation as to reduction of corpus funds to insignificant levels’, vide pages 93 to 112 of the report. (A copy of the relevant portion of the said report dated 28/01/2016 is at Pages 73 to 90 of the

Page 58 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Paper-book (PB-05) dated 01/06/2022 and a copy of the complete report was filed in a separate volume as per the Paper- book (PB-06) dated, 09/06/2022). The relevant portion from sub-para (b) of Para 93 of page 94 of the said reports reads as under: “The allegations in this regard are that the complete corpus fund has been withdrawn and nil amount is shown in the Annual Accounts statements for the year 2013-14. Though the University authorities in the annual report for the year 2013-14 have stated that the income tax dues from 2004 to 2011 amounting to Rs.277.11 crores have been paid to Income Tax Department, the University authorities have failed to convince the I.T Department seeking I.T exemption since the autonomous bodies like University could avail I.T exemption as the amount accumulated over the years is used subsequently for development and running of the University without seeking grants from the Government and thus the University authorities have failed in this regard; that the EC of the University being the authority vested with the responsibility to safeguard the properties and funds of the University, it has not taken care to manage the funds responsibly and appears to have shirked away from its responsibilities in protecting the funds to an extent of about Rs.541 Crores; that in the alternative the University could have planned and committed with the I.T Department to pay the amount in instalments over a period of about 3 to 4 years and now the University with bad financial planning had landed to an unhealthy financial position and it will be difficult to retrieve itself from the dismal position in the near future and maintain its status as a leading technological University; ----------------------------- ” The relevant portion from Para 98 of page 98 of the said report reads as under: “98. From the copies of the papers made available by the Registrar, VTU, it is noticed that soon after establishment of the University, in the year 1998-99 an application for registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act was filed before the I.T authorities. However, the said application appears to have not been pursed diligently. Till the end of financial year 2010-11 there was no issue with the I.T department. However, for the first time during the financial year 2011-12, the I.T authorities passed Assessment Orders (AO) u/s 143 (3) of the I.T Act for the Assessment Years (AY) 2004-05 to 2009-10. I.T authorities also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act for the aforesaid AYs and by order dated 31.01.2014 levied penalty of Rs.110,87,53,110/- -------------------”.

Page 59 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 The Ld.Counsel referred to para 101 of pages 100 & 101 of the said report referring to the said application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 as under: “101. As noted above, the application for registration u/s 12A was filed in the year 1999 to be precise on 25.05.1999…………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………” 12.10. It was submitted by the Ld.Counsel that in para 103 of pages 101 and 102 of the said Report, that the University would not have reached the dismal financial state if it had taken necessary steps after filing the said Application u/s 12A, which is as under: “103. As indicated above, though the first application for registration u/s 12A was filed as far back as on 25.5.1999, it is not forthcoming as to why the matter was not pursued by the University in right earnestness. Had the University authorities taken the necessary steps after filing the application, the University would not have reached this dismal financial state.----------". 12.11. It is submitted that the Fact Finding Committee (FFC) referred to the said application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999, as it was available on University’s records, which is another illustration of the genuineness of the application. The University moved an application u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act dated, 06/06/2015 before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to condone the delay in carrying out certain amendments to the VTU Act, 1994. The VTU Act, 1994 came to be amended by the Visveswaraiah Technological University (Amendment) Act, 2015 incorporating certain amendments for the purpose of grant of registration u/s 12A of the I.T Act, 1961. The amendments are given retrospective effect from the date of inception of the University on 01/04/1998. Section 2 of the said VTU (Amendment) Act, 2015 is as under: “(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st day of April,1998.”

Page 60 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 12.12. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the Gazette Notification of the Government of Karnataka dated, 18/08/2015, a copy of which is placed at Pages 61-72 in the Paper-book (PB- 05) dated, 01/06/2022. It is submitted that, the very basis for condonation of delay in carrying out certain amendments to the VTU Act in 2015 retrospectively, and claim for registration u/s 12A with effect from 01/04/1998, was made on the basis of the alleged application u/s.12A dated 25/05/1999, that was kept unattended by the authorities. Para 2 of the said Application filed before the CBDT reads as under: “2. on 25.05.1999, VTU filed an application in Form 10A(please see Annexure-3) seeking registration under section 12A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), but no order was passed on it. VTU then moved a second application on 26.05.2012 (please see Annexure-4), but this application was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Belgaum (the CIT), vide order dated 26.12.2012 (please see Annexure-5), on ground that the University had failed to incorporate in the VTU Act certain such as investment clause, accounts clause, amendment clause, etc.” 12.13. It was submitted that a copy of the Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 was enclosed as Annexure-4 to the said application filed u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The claim for registration retrospectively from 01/04/1998 on the basis of the said Application u/s.12A was reiterated in the subsequent letters dated 25/08/2015, 09/12/2015 and 18/07/2016 filed before the CBDT. (Copies of the said Application u/s 119(2)(b) and the said subsequent letters placed at Pages 93-116 of PB-05 dated 01/06/2022 and filed. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said application came to be rejected by the CBDT vide letter dated, 17/03/2017 (copy placed at Page Nos.31 & 32 of PB-06 filed on 09/06/2022) and it is understood that the CBDT had called for reports on the said application from the

Page 61 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru as is the procedure followed before rejecting the application. (A copy of the said letter of the CBDT dated 17/03/2017 placed at Pages 31–33 and filed in the Paper-book (PB-06) dated 09/06/2022). 12.14. It was submitted that, though the Application u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act was rejected, the factum of submission of Application u/s 12A on 25/05/1999 was not disputed at all and that the genuineness of the Application u/s 12A filed on 25/05/1999 was not disputed even before the Hon’ble High Court in the Revenue’s Appeal filed u/s 260A of the Act and only subsequently, Revenue disputed its filing in the IA No-2/2019 filed on 13/08/2019 seeking to amend the Memorandum of Appeal and to raise additional Grounds of Appeal/ additional Substantial Questions of Law. 12.15. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further stated that, this application u/s 119(2)(b) was filed on 06/06/2015 even before the filing of the application u/s 12A on 25/08/2015 before the CIT(E) for grant of registration retrospectively from 01/04/1998 on the basis of the said alleged application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999, which was kept pending. At the cost of repetition, the Ld.Counsel for the assesse filed a summary of the above submissions regarding the alleged application u/s.12A dated, 25/05/1999 is as under: Sl. Reference No. Copy available in the records of the Revenue - in Folder titled “12A Folder - F/No.57CIT-BGM/2001- 1. 02” opened in the name of the University as ‘Visvesvaraya technological University’. 2. Referred to in the reminder letter dated, 21-02-2002

Page 62 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 and a Copy was enclosed and filed on 27-02-2002 before the CIT, Belagavi and the same (ORIGINAL) is available in the Folder titled “VTU folder- Registration u/s 12A/80G date of application 22/02/2002 O/o ACIT, Circle-1, Belagavi”. The Revenue now has admitted in its written submissions filed during the hearing on 03-06-2022 (Para 14) that this letter was filed and on consideration of the same, the certificate u/s 80G dated, 18-07-2002 was issued. Referred to in the letter dated 25-05-1999, a copy of which was filed in the Office of CIT, Belgaum on 27- 3. 02-2002 and the same is available in Revenue’s record/ folder titled “80G Application dated 27/02/2002 of VTU”. Copy was filed for 80G renewal vide letter dated 24-03- 2004, to which the CIT responded vide letter dated, 25-05-2004 and the original letter and the postal cover are preserved. All the original correspondence was 4. produced before the Hon’ble Bench during the previous hearings and copies are filed vide pages 198 to 207 of the Paper-book filed on 23-03-2022. Scanned Copies of these letters are available in paras 8.1 and 8.4 above. Findings of the Fact-Finding Committee headed by Hon’ble Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, a retired 5. Judge of the Hon’ble High Court dated, vide its report dated, 28-01-2016. Copy of application u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act dated, 06- 06-2015 before the CBDT to condone the delay in 6. carrying out certain amendments to the VTU Act, 1994. Copy was also filed before the CIT (Exemptions), Bengaluru and on his instruction to justify the claim for retrospective registration w.e.f 01-04-1998, the 7. University filed response submissions vide letter dated, 27-10-2015 along with Affidavit, justifying retrospective registration on the basis of this Application u/s 12A which was pending unattended.

Page 63 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 13. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, when the copy of the alleged Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999, and letter dated, 21/02/2002, bearing acknowledgment of the Department was filed, the burden is on the Department to produce primary evidence and demonstrate its contention that the same were not filed. The Revenue had given an undertaking to produce the evidences before the Hon’ble High Court itself, but no such documents were produced till date, even in the remand proceedings before the Tribunal. 13.1. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, this Tribunal during the hearing on 03/06/2022 directed the Revenue to file basic registers/documents related to filing of application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999, which the Revenue had given an undertaking to produce before the Hon’ble High Court itself during the pendency of its appeal. Apart from the above, this Tribunal directed the Revenue to produce the case records along with order sheet entries/record of proceedings for grant of recognition u/s 80G vide order dated 18/07/2002 and its subsequent renewal vide order dated, 12/08/2004, considering that a copy of the Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 was filed at the time of issue as well as renewal of the recognition u/s 80G, since the said Application u/s 12A was kept pending. 13.2. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Revenue initially argued before this Tribunal on 23/03/2022, that the photocopies of the alleged Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 and the reminder letter dated 21/02/2002, filed by the assessee during the first round of proceedings before this Tribunal, were placed in a general folder in the Office of the

Page 64 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 CIT(E), Bengaluru, and the same were made available in the RTI Replies. It was submitted by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that, the alleged Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999, and the reminder letter dated 21/02/2002, were traced in the Revenue’s own records under the RTI Act. 13.2. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee drew our reference to the submissions of the assessee in Paper book no.01 filed on 31/03/2022 at the time of hearing. He therefore submitted that, the argument of the Revenue that these application/letter were not available stands proved incorrect. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, on 31/03/2022, on being confronted with the case records (subject matter of the RTI information) produced by the Revenue, the Revenue came up with explanation that, these documents under challange were “somehow inserted” in the Folders. It is submitted that, the assessee already demonstrated that, these documents were available in the specific folders maintained by the Office of the PCIT, Belagavi which came to be transferred vide Transfer Memo/Letter dated 20/05/2015, as more clearly submitted in the written submissions contained in the Paper books 04 & 05 respectively filed on 17/05/2022 and 01/06/2022. 13.4. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of hearing on 03/06/2022 before this Tribunal, the Revenue came up another argument that, the Folder containing the alleged Application u/s.12A dated, 25/05/1999 was created at the Office of the CIT(E), Bengaluru, and a photocopy of the said Application u/s.12A dated, 25/05/1999 was placed, and that, its supply under the RTI Act does not establish the fact of

Page 65 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 submission of the alleged Application on 25/05/1999. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee countered this argument of the Revenue, referring to the Annexure to the Letter dated, 07/07/2021, read with Corrigendum dated, 12/07/2021, under the RTI Act, which specifically mentioned that this Folder was received from the PCIT, Belagavi vide Transfer Memo dated, 20/05/2015 and mentioned at Serial No.7 of the said letter. It was specifically pointed out by the Ld,Counsel of the assessee that, the CIT, Belgaum opened the Folder in the name of the assessee i.e., “Visvesvaraya Technological University, Jnana Sangama Campus, Belgaum” and Folder No.F.No.57/CIT- BGM/2001-02 was assigned mentioning the PAN being AAAJV0064F, clearly demonstrating that the Folder was opened in the FY 2001-02, on receipt of copy of the said alleged Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999, that was pending unattended. It was submitted that, the Revenue has admitted in Para 14 of its written submission that the letter dated, 21/02/2002 was filed and acted upon by issuing 80G Certificate dated, 18/07/2002, which was also alleged to have been ‘manipulated and inserted’. 13.5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Revenue made misleading statement on assessee’s Third-Party evidence being, letter filed on 04/12/2002 before the CIT, Belgaum stating that, it was assessee’s copy bearing seal of acknowledgment issued by the IT Department, which was demonstrated to be incorrect and misleading, as it was Revenue’s copy commonly referred to as the “Office copy” containing instructions to the Income-tax Inspector.

Page 66 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 13.5.It was thus submitted that, the submissions/explanations of the Revenue have been demonstrated to be incorrect before this Tribunal with reference to the Revenue’s own records. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Revenue filed IA No.3 of 2019 before the Hon’ble High Court alleging that, the Application u/s.12A dated 25/05/1999 & the reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 were never filed with the revenue but fabricated. However he submitted that there was overwhelming evidence to establish that these said documents were filed by the assessee were there on record as per reply issued by the CIT (E ) Bangaluru and the PCIT, Belagavi, to the Application dated, 21/08/2019 & 19/08/2019 filed under the RTI Act. The grant of recognition u/s 80G vide order dated, 18/07/2002 and its subsequent renewal vide order dated 12/08/2004, could not be disputed by the Revenue and a copy of the Application u/s 12A was filed for these purposes before the CIT, Belagavi once again. It was submitted that if the Applications u/s.80G for grant of registration and its renewal as afore-mentioned, were to be made available to the assessee, establishes the case of the assessee and the fact of submissions of the alleged Application u/s.12A. Following are information/documents sought to be supplied by the assessee under the aforestated RTI Applications: 1. In connection with the appeal filed by the Department before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru against the order of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.8(Bang) of 2016, dated, 04/06/2018 granting registration u/s 12A with retrospective effect from 0/04/1998, the following information/documents are required: (i) certified copy of the order dated, 18-07-2002 granting recognition u/s 80G for the period from 01-04-1998 to 31-03- 2003;

Page 67 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 (ii) certified copy of the application filed by the University u/s 80G dated, 08-10-1998 in Form No. 10G on the basis which the above said order in Sl.No. (i) granting recognition u/s 80G was issued. (iii) certified copy of the other applications and annexures filed along with the said application u/s 80G mentioned above in Sl.No. (ii). (iv) certified copy of the letter of the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum, in F.No. CIT/BGM/113/03/04/2004-2005, dated, 25/05/2004 addressed to the Finance Officer, Visvesvaraya Technological University communicating that fresh application u/s 80G in Form No. 10G was required to be filed for recognition u/s 80G. This letter was issued in response to the applications of the University u/s 80G filed vide letter in No. VTU/FO/2003- 04/10339 dated, 24/03/2004. (v) certified copy of the letter of the applicant-University in No. VTU/FO/2003-04/10339 dated, 24/03/2004 referred to in Sl.No. (iv) above and filed before the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum. (vi) Certified copies of the applications and other documents filed by the applicant-University vide letter in Ref. No. VTU/FO/2003- 04/10339 dated, 24/03/2004, referred to in Sl. Nos. (iv) & (v) above. (vii) certified copy of the order u/s 80G dated, 12-08-2004 issued on the basis of the letter of the applicant-University in No. Ref.No. VTU/FO/2004-05 dated, 17/06/2004. (viii) certified copy of the letter of the applicant-University in Ref.No. VTU/FO/2004-05 dated, 17/06/2004 referred to above in Sl.No. (vii), on the basis of which the order u/s 80G dated, 12/08/2004 was issued. (ix) Certified copies of the order sheet notings and record of proceedings maintained in the office records for the issue of orders u/s 80G dated, 18/07/2002 and 12/08/2004 referred to above. 13.6. He thus submitted that both the Applications came to be rejected citing identical reasoning stating the case records are “Not Traceable/Not Available” even though the case records in 15 folders were available and transferred to the CIT(E), Bengaluru by the PCIT, Belagavi vide letter/Transfer Memo dated 20/05/2015. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that that the PCIT,

Page 68 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Belagavi had referred to the transfer of the case records of the University vide letter dated, 20/05/2015 in the subsequent letter dated, 04/09/2018. It is submitted that the said letter of the PCIT, Belagavi dated, 04/09/2018 was filed by the Revenue in IA No.3/2015, which revealed that the CIT(E), Bengaluru as well as the PCIT, Belagavi made incorrect statements under the RTI Act replying that the case records are “Not Traceable/ Not Available”. 13.7. It was submitted that the procedure for dealing with the RTI Application by the public authority, if the information is held by another public authority is laid down in sub-section (3) of section 6 of the RTI Act. The said sub-section is as under: “(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information— (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer. Request for obtaining information. Disposal of request. Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub- section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.” 13.8. It was submitted that the RTI Application was made before the PCIT, Belagavi who had already transferred the subject 15 Folders to the CIT(E), Bengaluru, vide Transfer Memo dated, 20/05/2015 as was revealed in the letter dated, 04/09/2018 issued by the PCIT, Belagavi, filed before the Hon’ble High Court in IA No.3 of 2019. But the PCIT, Belagavi, instead of

Page 69 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 transferring the Application to the CIT(E), Bengaluru, in accordance with the above said procedure to be followed under the RTI Act, denied access to the information replying as under vide letter dated, 16/09/2019 in F.No.RTI/Pr.CIT/BGV/2019-20. “The information/details sought by you are very old and are before restructuring of the Income-tax Department, Inspite of best efforts put in, the records pertaining to the same are not traceable. Hence, the information/details sought by you cannot be supplied now. The efforts are being made to trace-out the records and the information /details sought by you will be supplied as soon as the records are traced out.” 13.9. Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that this reply is in total contradiction to the actual facts mentioned by the PCIT in his letter dated, 04/09/2018 addressed to the CIT(E), Bengaluru; and filed by the Revenue before Hon’ble High Court in its IA No.3. It is stated therein as under (the relevant portion). “Consequent to change in jurisdiction due to Restructuring of Exemption Directorate, the judicial and other folders (15 Nos.) in the case of M/s Visvesvaraya Technology University, Belagavi, have already been transferred to the CIT(Exemptions), Bengaluru vide letter dt 20.05.2015 by speed post (copy enclosed). Hence, I am directed to enclose herewith the copy forwarding letter in F No.91/Exemptions/Pr.CIT/BGV/2015- 16 dt. 20.05.2015 addressed to the CIT(Exemptions), Bengaluru for kind reference. 13.10. The case records of the assessee were available in the custody of the PCIT, Belagavi, prior to their transfer to the CIT(E), Bengaluru, vide Transfer Memo/Letter dated 20/05/2015. The CIT(E) Bengaluru, who was in custody of these case records/documents, also denied the information under the RTI Act by replying as under vide order dated, 19/09/2019.

Page 70 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 “The information sought by the Applicant pertains to pre-structuring period and the Commissioner (Exemption) came into effect from 15/11/2014 as per CBDT’s Notification No.52/2014 and as such the information is not available in this office.” 13.11. It is submitted that the CIT(E), Bengaluru, also made an incorrect reply stating ‘information is not available’ and denied access to the crucial information/documents, even though the case records were very much available in his possession. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that when the Revenue had already made allegations of fraud and manipulation of the documents before the Hon’ble High Court, it would be clear that the PCIT, Belagavi as well as the CIT(E), Bengaluru, made incorrect statements in the RTI replies, which led to suppression of material information from coming on record. 13.12. It was submitted that the complete records in 15 Folders received by the CIT(E), Bengaluru, from the PCIT, Belagavi as per the Transfer Memo dated, 20/05/2015, were not made available on the date of inspection by the legal advisor of the assessee on 07/07/2021 and the ‘Record of Proceedings/Order sheet notings’ were not available even in a single folder and it appeared that these were taken out for sharing with other authorities in connection with certain vigilance proceedings. Hence, a letter was addressed to the CIT(E) Bengaluru dated, 09/07/2021, requesting to make available the complete records. The CIT(E) had not even supplied the annexure to the said letter dated 20/05/2015 of the PCIT Belagavi (Transfer Memo) to know whether all the case records were made available for inspection or not under the RTI Act.

Page 71 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 13.13. Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that it was earlier brought to the notice of the CIT(E), Bengaluru vide its letter dated, 09/07/2021 and that that the time allowed for inspection of the case records was too short since the ITO (HQ) /CPIO had an official meeting scheduled in the second half of 07/07/2021. The relevant portion in para 7 & 8 of the said letter sated, 09/07/2021 is as under: “7. During the inspection of the folders, I have noticed that the order sheets containing the notings of the proceedings were not available. The documents present in the folders were also not having inter- connection. They were not chronologically placed nor page numbered. The 80G folder and 12A folder did not contain all the documents which should be normally present in such folder. During my inspection of the folders with DCIT on 22-06-2022, I had noticed that these folders had been subjected to some kind of inspection and certified copies of the documents were provided by the Concerned officer to officers of other wing of the Department. Kindly refer to my acknowledgement dated 22-06-2021 issued Learned DCIT (Exemption) with copy marked to your office. It is possible that some documents belonging the subject 15 folders have been taken out for sharing with officers of the other wing of the Dept. I therefore request you to kindly ascertain the same and let me know if any of the documents of these 15 folders are available with any officers of the other wing so that the same could be made available to me as requested by me under RTI Act. 8. Since, the Learned ITO(HQ) was to attend an official meeting at 3PM on that day (07/07/2021), I had to leave without completing full inspection of all the folders and without getting copies of all the documents requested as the time available was too short to ascertain the complete facts.” The Ld.Counsel submitted that, the legal advisor then filed appeal to the CIT(E) (ITO HQ is the CPIO) on 05/08/2021 raising the following Grounds: “2. The CPIO, O/o CIT (Exemptions), Bengaluru provided certain information and documents vide letter dated, 07-07-2021 read with the letter dated, 12-07-2021 and the corrigendum annexed to it. The following information/documents have not been provided: (i)Annexure to the said letter of the PCIT, Belagavi dated, 20-05- 2015, on the ground that it is ‘Internal Correspondence’. (ii) The order sheets recording the proceeding for grant/refusal of recognition u/s 12A and u/s 80G of the Act, which are to be maintained as per the officer procedure.

Page 72 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 (iii) the documents in these folders were not arranged in any chronological manner and also not having interconnection, clearly showing that important documents have been taken out for reasons not known, as more clearly mentioned in the letter dated, 09-07-2021 filed by the applicant. All these documents are first to be arranged chronologically as per the proceeding conducted with reference to the missing order sheet notings and made available for inspection. 3. These facts were communicated to the CPIO vide letter dated, 09-07- 2021. However, the CPIO has disposed of the application vide letter dated, 12-07-2021 without assigning any reasons as to why the above- mentioned documents are not supplied. Hence this appeal praying for direction to make avail the 15 folders received from the PCIT, Belagavi after arranging them in chronological order and ensuring that no document is missing and providing the order sheet recordings, without which it is not possible to ascertain the documents missing.” 13.14. The Appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 02/09/2021 on the Ground that: (i). The CPIO has provided records “as is where is” basis for inspection, assigning no reasons for not providing the copies of the Order Sheet Notings / record of proceeding in the case records. (ii). A Copy of the Annexure to the letter of the PCIT, Belagavi dated, 20-05- 2015 which is a Transfer Memo of 15 case records/ folder is denied on the ground that it is an ‘Internal Correspondence’. 13.15. It was submitted that further Appeal is filed before the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi vide Diary No.610757 dated, 20/02/2022. It is submitted that the sequence of chronological events under the RTI Act required to be viewed in the background of denial of access to the CRUCIAL Documents available on records vide RTI replies of the PCIT, Belagavi and CIT(E), Bengaluru, respectively dated, 16/09/2019 and 19/09/2019 on the ground that, the records were ‘Not Traceable’, as more clearly submitted in the earlier Paper-book (PB-04) filed on 17/05/2022. The denial of material information under the above said RTI replies shows that: (i). The replies were made even without verifying the case records very much available with the authorities. If that is so, the Revenue disowned the disputed documents – Application u/s 12A dated, 25-05- 1999 and the reminder letter dated, 21-02-2002 – before the Hon’ble

Page 73 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Tribunal in the original Appellate proceedings without verifying its own records. (ii). If the RTI replies were made by the said authorities only after verifying Revenue’s own records, it clearly indicates that material information crucial for deciding the dispute was withheld and suppressed. 13.16. Ld.Counsel for the assessee further stated that, the documents are available on record and retrieved under the RTI Act, it is submitted that the fact of submission of these documents cannot be controverted and therefore, the order of this Tribunal in the first round of proceedings requires to be reiterated in favour of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee has made prayer for admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal, vide pages 225 to 229 of the Paper-book filed on 21/03/2022, which are necessary as well as appropriate to decide the factum of submission of the Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 in accordance with directions of the Hon’ble High Court. The submissions of the assessee on the Additional Grounds of Appeal are as under: 14. The assessee has raised Additional Grounds that are as under: (1). The Revenue ought not to have DISOWNED the application u/s 12A dated, 25-05-1999 before the Hon’ble Tribunal: (a). BECAUSE, a copy of the said application was filed before the CIT (Exemptions) justifying registration retrospectively w.e.f.01-04-1998 and its genuineness was not disputed by him as it was available on record along with its related correspondence. (b). BECAUSE, the Revenue had not produced any evidence or the connected records in 15 folders received from the PCIT, Belagavi, before the Hon’ble Tribunal in the earlier proceedings, even though a number of opportunities/adjournments were granted specifically for this purpose. 14.1. It is submitted that, the Revenue disowned the Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999 as well as the reminder letter dated,

Page 74 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 21/02/2002 (this letter is now conceded to have been filed) before this Tribunal in the original proceedings, Para 7 of pages 10 & 11 of the Order in ITA No.8/Bang/2016 dated 04/06/2018. As may be ascertained from the record, the Revenue had neither furnished any basis for disowning the said documents nor filed the Affidavit. It is submitted that, disowning of a document may be made only on examination of the case records, if it is found that the documents are not on record. It is further submitted that, since the said documents, being alleged application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999, and reminder letter dated, 21/02/2002 are on record along with Annexures, as is revealed in the subsequent events under the RTI Act, it becomes clear that, the Revenue made the statement of disowning the documents, without even examining its own records, or if it had examined its records, it had suppressed the material information of these documents having there on record from the this Tribunal. 14.2. In the first round of appeal before this Tribunal on Revenue was directed vide order sheet entry dated, 09/10/2017, to clarify, as to why, the alleged Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 was not disposed off. The extract of the order sheet entry is as under: “This appeal was heard on 24.07.2017. Though it was argued on various aspects, but no argument was advanced by the revenue as to why the application filed by the assessee on 25.05.1999 for grant of registration u/s. 12A was not disposed of. If it is not disposed of by the revenue till date, whether registration can be granted with effect from the date from which registration was sought in the application. Accordingly, the appeal is released for clarification. The registry is directed to list this appeal for hearing after treating it to be part-heard on 30.10.2017. Parties be informed accordingly.” 14.3. It was submitted that, the Revenue took several adjournments and the case was heard finally on 04/05/2018

Page 75 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 when the Revenue disowned the above-mentioned documents. It is to be noted that the Revenue took time of about six months and disowned the documents, even though the documents were available in the folders received from the PCIT, Belgaum vide his letter dated, 20/05/2015, as is revealed in the subsequent events that unfolded under the RTI Act. 14.4. He submitted that the assessee filed the Application u/s 12A before the CIT(E), Bengaluru, with a request to grant the registration retrospectively from 01/04/1998 i.e., from the date of setting up of the University. The CIT(E) directed the assessee to substantiate its claim of the application filed for registration on 25/05/1999 and to explain the basis of for registration u/s.12A retrospectively from 01/04/1998. In response, the University filed letter dated, 27/10/2015 along with a copy of the Application u/s 12A dated, 25/05/1999 and explained the basis for grant of registration with retrospective effect from 01/04/1998. The assessee filed affidavit dated, 26/10/2015 sworn to by the then Registrar, confirming the fact that the alleged Application u/s.12A dated, 25/05/1999 were filed by the assessee. (A copy of the said letter dated, 27-10-2015 and the Affidavit are placed at pg. 227-236 of P.B-I. 14.5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (E) granted registration u/s 12A vide Certificate of Registration u/s 12AA dated 08/12/2015, for assessment year 2016-17 onwards, and did not assign any reason for not granting the registration retrospectively from 01/04/1998, in spite of obtaining clarifications, evidences and submissions in support of the claim for retrospective registration as above mentioned. He submitted

Page 76 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 that the CIT(E) did not dispute the genuineness of the said Application u/s 12A dated 25/05/1999, since it was available on record and along with the two letters- reminder dated 21/02/2002 & the letter filed on 27/02/2002. He submitted that, the two original letters bearing the INWARD seal of the Department were available on record. The copies of the said Application u/s 12A were annexed to the letters/ documents filed for grant of recognition u/s 80G in 2002 and its renewal in 2004, making specific references to the same and therefore the CIT(E) did not dispute the genuineness of its submission. 14.6. Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Revenue has filed written submissions during the hearing before this Tribunal on 03-06-2022, and an unsigned & undated copy is handed over to the Ld.Counsel of the assessee. It is submitted that the assessee then filed rejoinder on the same, vide Paper book 06 filed on 09/06/2022. It was submitted that, the Revenue has remained silent on following issues/submissions made by the assessee: (i). The Revenue has not commented on the specific submissions of the University that there was no basis for “DISOWNING” the Application u/s 12A dated, 25-05-1999 and the reminder letter dated, 21-02- 2002 before the Hon’ble Tribunal during the original appellate proceedings. The submission that the Revenue suppressed the material information before the Hon’ble Tribunal that the above said documents were available on record. The fact that Revenue has now conceded in para 14 of its written submissions that the reminder letter dated, 21-02-2002 was filed & acted upon shows that the Revenue made misleading statement before the Hon’ble Tribunal suppressing the availability of the said document in its own records. (ii). The submissions of the University that the Commissioner of Income- tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru, took the said Application u/s 12A on record and the accompanying Affidavit/written justification for retrospective registration, but did not dispute the genuineness of the Application, as it was available on record, is not disputed by the Revenue at all; because, the said Application u/s 12A and the

Page 77 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 reminder letter dated, 21-02-2002 have been available on records as is revealed in the subsequent events under the RTI Act. Seen in the factual background where the Revenue has now conceded that the reminder letter dated, 21-02-2002 was filed (on 27-02-2002), the allegation of manipulation of the said Application u/s 12A is completely baseless and misleading. (iii). The submission of the University that the information under the RTI Act in 2019 was denied since disclosure of the information could have been contrary to the Revenue’s own averments before the Hon’ble High Court alleging manipulation of the said Application u/s 12A and the reminder letter dated, 21-02-2002 is not disputed at all. (iv). The submission of the University that even in the information supplied vide letter dated, 07-07-2021 of the RTI Act by the CIT(Exemptions), Bengaluru, crucial information/documents, including the letter/Transfer Memo dated, 20-05-2015 of the PCIT, Belagavi and order sheet noting are denied to withhold information is not disputed at all. (v). The University has submitted in its written submissions as to how the Revenue made false & misleading submissions before the Hon’ble Tribunal, which has not been commented at all. 14.7. Further, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the assessee also received Notice dated, 18/07/2019 from the Sub Inspector of Police, Tilak Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru 560041, informing that, the Revenue filed a complaint alleging manipulation of certain documents. He submitted that a copy of the said Application u/s 12A was enclosed to the said Notice. It was submitted that, in response, the assessee submitted letter dated 21/02/2002, wherein reference to the alleged Application u/s.12A was made, that was acted by issuing certificate u/s.80G dated, 18/07/2002, and the question of manipulation of either the said letter, or the said Application u/s 12A, do not arise. 14.8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the burden of proof was on the Revenue to place evidence on record and demonstrate, as to how the said documents were manipulated. He submitted that, the Revenue should furnish all the basic Registers/documents maintained during the relevant time including the Inward Registers, 12A Registers etc., and the

Page 78 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Revenue has not placed any evidence in support of its allegation till date. Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that since there was no prima facie material with the Revenue to support its allegation of manipulation of documents, no action was taken on the said complaint. In view of the said allegation and also considering the allegations made before the Hon’ble High Court, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the assessee filed the first set of Applications under the RTI Act in 2019, requesting information/documents to disprove the allegations of the Revenue, which was denied by making false replies stating that the case records were not traceable, as more clearly brought out in the written submissions filed before this Tribunal. 14.9. It was submitted that, the documents in question were available in Revenue’s own records and even after tracing these documents under the RTI Act, the Revenue made allegations of manipulation of documents by the assessee before the this Tribunal, that are false & misleading. It was submitted that, once the disputed documents were traced in Revenue’s own records, the reference to seal of acknowledgment etc. are raised only to divert attentions by the Revenue. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee thus prayed that, in the interest of equity & justice, this Tribunal may uphold the submission of the assessee by granting certification u/s 12A as per the application dated 25/05/1999. 15. On the other hand, Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that, the assessee is seeking automatic registration under section 12AA on the ground that the application dated 25/5/1999 has not been rejected within a period of 6 months. The very same issue was considered by the Full bench of Hon’ble

Page 79 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Allahabad High Court in the case of Muzaffarnagar Development Authority reported in 372 ITR 209 and has held that non-disposal of the application for registration before the expiry of 6 months as provided under Section 12AA(2) of the Act would not result in deemed grant of registration and disagreed with the coordinate bench decision in the case of Society for Promotion of Education Adventure Sport and Conservation of Environment. The said decision was carried in appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshit Foundations Sehmalpur Jalalpur Jaunpur in SLA. 26978/2017, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 22/4/2022 agreed with the full bench decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and has held that, even if in case, where, registration application under Section 12AA is not decided within 6 months, there shall not be any deemed registration. In view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue, all the issues raised in relation to the filing of the application becomes academic. 15.1. It was submitted by the Ld.Satanding Counsel for the Revenue that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is purely on interpretation of law, and the same is required to be considered even in the present proceedings, and consequently the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be rejected. Without prejudice to the above submissions, The Ld.Standing Counsel for the revenue further submitted that this Tribunal directed the Revenue to produce the inward register of the office of Commissioner of Income tax, Belagavi for the period commencing June 2001 maintained for receipt of applications for registration under Section 12A and 80G of the Act. It is submitted that efforts

Page 80 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 were made to trace the registers. In view of the registers are more than 2 decades old, the same were not traceable. However efforts are being made to trace the registers and the same will be placed for consideration of this Hon'ble Tribunal on being traced. 15.2. Ld.Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that the alleged application dated 25/5/1999 said to have been filed before the CIT, Belagavi is incorrect. The acknowledgement bears the seal of office of the CIT Belagavi, whereas the office of the CIT, Belagavi came into existence in the month of June 2001 and the assessee could not have filed an application dated 25/5/1999 in a non existing office. The Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue further submitted that, the assessee made reference to the application filed seeking certification under section 80G of the Act at page 170 of the paper book, wherein, the assessee states that, the application for registration under section 12A of the act has been applied. This application is dated 8/10/1998. He submitted that, it is beyond commonsense approach that the assessee could have filed the alleged application dated 25/5/1999 on 8/10/1998. 15.3. Ld.Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee further made submission that, 80G certificate was granted on the basis of the application being filed for registration under section 12A of the act. He submitted that this is incorrect submission, as it is evident from the application dated 8/10/1998, that 80G certificate was issued on the basis of the exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act that the assessee validly held prior to 1998. The Ld.Standing Counsel for the revenue referred to the signature in the alleged application for

Page 81 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 registration under section 12A placed at page 165 and letter said to have been filed before the CIT, Panaji in relation to certificate under section 80G of the Act, signed on 25/5/1999. He submitted that, on comparison of the signatures of the registrar, it is clear that they are different, and is self explanatory regarding the genuineness of the application dated 25/5/1999. He further submitted that, if the application dated 25/5/1999 is genuine, there could not be two different registrar signing on the same day in two application, one for the purpose of registration under Section 12A of the act, and another for certificate under section 80G of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has not yet offered any explanation for this discrepancy. 15.4. The Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that, the submission of the assessee that, 80G certificate dated 18/7/2002 was issued on the basis of the application dated 8/10/1998. He submitted that, the application dated 8/10/1998 reflects filing of application under section 12A of the Act, and hence it is deemed to have been filed and accepted by the revenue is incorrect. Ld.Standing Counsel for the revenue stated that the registration under section 12A of the Act is sought in view of the exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act, as stated above by the assessee. However, mere statement of the assessee that application for registration under section 12A of the Act has been applied as on 8/10/1998 and relying on the application dated 25/5/1999 is illogical and beyond commonsense. 15.5. Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that, the assessee relied on letters wherein filing of application for registration under section 12A of the Act, was filed and the same

Page 82 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 is not disputed by the revenue is irrelevant. The Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue further stated that, the assessee instead of proving the genuineness of filing the alleged application dated 25/5/99, is attempting to persuade this Tribunal by making reference to various letters which are irrelevant for the issue under consideration. He submitted that, even if a reference has been made in various correspondences with the Department, the burden is on the assessee to prove that, how the application dated 25/5/1999 would have been filed in a non-existing office. He categorically stated before the Hon'ble High Court and the same has been reiterated before this Tribunal that the Revenue has never used the seal which is said to have been claimed as an acknowledgement issued by the Revenue. 15.6. The Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that, the assessee referred to the letter issued by the ACIT dated 25/3/2019 to the Jt.Director of IT(Vigilance), is only a narration of the facts, and not accepting the correctness or genuineness of the application dated 25/5/1999. The communication which is internal for vigilance purposes would not prove the genuineness of the application dated 25/5/1999. Further the said correspondence would not lead to bringing into existence of a non existing office. Existence of the office of the CIT, Belagavi is not accepted in this correspondence and the information in the letter in the absence of the acknowledgement of the non-existing office. 15.7. The Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that, contention of the assessee regarding the alleged application for registration under Section 12A of the Act dated 25/5/1999 is available in the folder of the Income Tax Department and hence it

Page 83 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 is deemed to have been filed, is incorrect. The folder number is assigned as F.No.57/CIT-BGM/2001-02 does not in no way prove that the alleged application dated 25/5/99 was filed in the office of the CIT Belagavi, which was not in existence as on the alleged date. It is placed on record that application dated 8/10/1998 for registration under section 80G was filed before the CIT, Panaji, however on restructuring of the jurisdiction, and on coming into existence of the CIT Belagavi, the application was considered by the CIT, Belagavi, in that context the file number has been assigned of 2001-02. He further submitted that the contention of the assessee regarding file cover that is titled "12A FOLDER" and therefore the alleged application dated 25/5/1999 is deemed to have been filed, is again incorrect, for the reason that, the office of CIT Belagavi was not in existence as on 25/5/99. Also for the reason that the seal reflecting on the alleged application dated 25/5/99 said to have been filed in the office of the CIT, Belagavi is not the seal of the Income Tax Department itself. 15.8. The Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that, the contention of the assessee regarding the letter dated 21/2/02 at page number 59 of the paper book reflecting filing of the alleged application for registration under section 12A of the Act and 80G of the Act and therefore the alleged application dated 25/5/99 is deemed to have been filed is incorrect. The said statement in the letter regarding filing of application under section 12A of the Act, neither supported by any document nor such a statement would prove filing of the alleged application dated 25/5/99. The said statement in the letter is irrelevant for the reason that, the said letter also covered request for registration under section 80G of

Page 84 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 the Act on the basis of the provisions of section 10(23C) of the Act which was considered and certificate under 80G dated 18/7/2002 was issued. 15.9. It was further brought to our notice that, another application for registration under section 80G of the Act dated 17/6/2004 at page 205 of the Act does not speak about the alleged application for registration under section 12A of the Act that is pending. He submitted that, if the application at page 205 is read with letter dated 21/2/2002 at page 59, would clearly indicate that the reference to filing of application for registration under section 12A of the Act is without any basis and incorrect. 15.10. It was submitted that alleged letter dated 25/5/99 filed before the CIT Belagavi, on 27/2/02, is in relation to registration under section 80G of the Act in the context of section 10(23C). He submitted that, the said letter indicates filing of the alleged application for registration under section 12A of the Act in the context of the application for registration in FORM No.10G dated 8/10/98. The Ld. Standing Counsel for the revenue submitted that, the application dated 8/10/1998 for 80G registration reflects filing of application for registration under section 12A of the Act, whereas it is the specific case of the assessee that application for registration under section 12A of the Act was filed on 25/05/99. In this context, he relied on the reference to application for registration under section 12A of the act, in the letter dated 25/05/99 filed by the Department on 27/02/22 is self-explanatory, and speaks volumes about the genuineness of the alleged application dated 25/05/99. The Ld.Standing Counsel for the revenue at the cost of repetition, he submitted

Page 85 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 that, it is unimaginable and impossible to accept that alleged application dated 25/5/99 has been referred to as being filed in the application dated 8/10/98. 15.11 The Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that, the contention of the assessee that seal of the Department for inward and to the acknowledgement of the assessee is different is not only incorrect and is baseless. It was submitted that, the application for registration under section 12A of the Act was filed on 1/6/12 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 26/12/2012. He submitted that, the said rejection order was subjected to appeal in ITA No.46/Pnj/2013 by the assessee, and the Hon’ble Panaji bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 19/9/2013 rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. He submitted that, there is no whisper about the alleged application being dated 25/5/99 being kept pending by the revenue at the time of hearing of appeal by Hon’ble Panaji bench. This would suggest the nonexistence of the alleged application dated 25/05/99 with the Revenue. He thus submitted that the arguments advanced by the assessee does not hold good. 16. We have perused the submissions advanced by the both sides in light of records placed before us. The assessee before us has been incorporated under the VTU Act, as notified by the Government of Karnataka and came into existence w.e.f 01/04/1998. The present assessee has been denied 12A registration upto 2014. It is the case of the assessee that it had filed application seeking 12 A registration on 25/05/1999, where as the revenue contends that the assessee for the first time filed the 12 A application back dated, on

Page 86 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 21/02/2002. The Revenue contended before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before this Tribunal that office of the PCIT Belgam came into existence in June 2001, and therefore it is not possible that the assessee could have filed the alleged application that bares the acknowledgement of ITO Belgam, during the period when the office was not in existence. The revenue is challenging the acknowledgement on the alledged application dated 25/05/1999. 16.1. The Assessee in counter submitted that, had the office not in existence the alleged application would not have been found with the revenue authorities, in support of which the assessee has filed letters and RTI replies. The issue therefore that needs to be looked into is:  Whether the alleged application dated 25/05/1999 was filed by the assessee on the even date and that the said application existed with the revenue as on 25/05/1999? 16.3. The assessee filed before this Tribunal, third party evidences showing similar seal as the one appearing in the alleged application dated 25/05/1999(Page 149 to163 of PB dated 23/06/2022). And the Revenue also filed third party evidences showing different seal (Page 148 of PB dated 23/06/2022). It is the allegation of the revenue that the PCIT Belgaum office was constituted only in the year 2001, and therefore alleged application dated 25/05/1999, filed by the assessee and the seal on the alleged application is manipulated. It is submitted, that in the application seeking 80G registration dated 08/10/1998, placed at page 80 of PB I shows that the application for registration under section 12A(a) has been

Page 87 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 applied. However the alleged application seeking registration under section 12A in Form 10 is dated 25/05/1999. Even this does not substantiate the stand of the assessee. 16.4. At this juncture the inward register is very important to be verified. The revenue has not placed before this Tribunal the Inward register that was first maintained by the Belgam Income Tax office. The Inward register maintained y the Panaji Income Tax office, for the relevant period is also necessary to be verified. On a query being raised by this Tribunal to produce the first inward register of the PCIT Belgam, or Income tax office Belgam, the Ld.Standing council for the revenue could not produce through considerable opportunity was granted by this Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that during 2001-02, the alleged application was filed by the assessee with the ITO Belgam, at the time when assessee was seeking renewal of 80G Application. And the folder baring number, F/NO.57/CIT-BGM/2001-02 was formed. Before this Tribunal the assessee has not been able to bring on record any document to establish that the alleged application was available on the Revenue record prior to formation of folder baring number, F/NO.57/CIT-BGM/2001-02. 16.5. Further the letter issued by the CIT(E) Bangalore dated 25/03/2019 addressed to the Joint Director Vigilance, post the Vigilance Inspection(scanned and reproduced herein above), revels that the Finance officer of the assessee was called upon during 2011 for non filing of Return of income. This led to the reopening of the assessment and reasons were recorded for the period 2004-03 to 2012-13.

Page 88 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 16.6. The Ld.AR also raised a plea of deemed registration as the revenue did not act upon the alleged application filed on 25/02/1999. This argument can be analysed only when it is very clear from the records that the alleged application was on the file of the revenue prior to February 2002. However we may bring it to the notice that there is divergent views of various Hon’ble High Courts on the issue of deemed registration. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Rajasthan and Kerala have ruled in favour of the assessee on the other hand Hon’ble High Courts of Gujrat, Madras and Full Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court have ruled against the assessee. 16.7. We also note that the assessee had filed condonation application dated 16/06/2015 before the CBDT towards the refiling of the application seeking registration under section 12AA. The assessee therein submitted that it had filed application in Form 10 on 25/05/1999(being the alleged application before this tribunal), seeking registration under section 12A of the Act, on which no order was passed. The assessee then filed second application on 06/06/2012 which was rejected vide order dated 26/12/2012, on the ground that the assessee failed to incorporate in the VTU Act, certain clauses such as investment clause, accounts clause, amendment clause etc. This order was the challenged by the assessee before the Honb’le Tribunal at Panaji. The Tribunal vide order dated 19/09/13 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that, the assessee never informed the Panaji Bench of this Tribunal (during 2013, in the appeal seeking registration under section 12AA of the Act), and also before the Hon’ble Supreme

Page 89 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 Court [in the appeal that was filed seeking registration under section 10(23)(c)], regarding the alleged Application dated 25/05/1999 having filed on the even date and pendency of the same with the revenue. Therefore, without there being a cogent material it is not possible to accept the submission of the assessee. The file started to be maintained by the revenue from 2001-2002, will not support the contentions of the assessee that the alleged 12 Application was filed on 25/05/1999. 16.8. We also refer to the letter by the assessee dated 26/05/2012. For sake of convenience, the same is scanned and reproduced herewith:

Page 90 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016

16.19. The above referred letter dated 26/05/2012 by the assessee clearly states that assessee do not have any document in support to prove the filing of the alleged application on 25/05/1999. We therefore, remand this issue to the Ld.CIT(A) to verify the inward register first maintained by the Belgaum office and to

Page 91 ITA No. 8/Bang/2016 verify the seal in order to establish whether the alleged application dated 25/05/1999 was existing with the revenue records prior to 2002. Assessee as well as revenue has filed various additional evidences which may be considered in order to verify the existence of the alleged application on the revenue records. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 25th November, 2022. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore