Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT-1, Pune, dated 10-07-2014.
Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT granted the registration u/s.12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. 31-08-2009 (i.e. A.Y. 2010-11) and failed to appreciate that the application filed on 04-05- 2006 within a period of six months, the registration is deemed to have been granted to the appellant and ignore the order of Hon ITAT. It is therefore prayed that the Ld. CIT may please be directed to grant registration to the appellant since the date of its inception by condoning the delay in filing the application. 2. It may please be held that the application dated 16-03-2009 filed on 31-08-2009 by the appellant in Form No.10A for grant of registration u/s.12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961, being a true copy of the earlier application filed on 04-05-2006, the date of application be held as 04-05-2006 and the Ld.CIT may please be directed to grant registration to the appellant since the date of its inception by condoning the delay in filing the application. 3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a Trust and filed
Form 10A for registration u/s.12A of the Act on 31-08-2009. The request
for registration was rejected by the CIT on finding that the objects and
activities are not charitable in nature. Matter reached to the Tribunal in
the first round of the proceedings. In the appeal, the Tribunal allowed the
appeal of the assessee with the observation that the assessee trust came
into existence in pursuant to the decision of Govt. of Maharashtra to
provide certain assistance to the public at large in the matters relating to
the administration in various Govt. offices at a nominal price. The charges
collected by the trust cannot be considered as a commercial transactions/
activity in order to deny the benefit of registration u/s.12A of the Act. The
Tribunal observed that, with similar objects, the registration u/s.12A of the
Act was granted to the District Setu Centre, Nashik. The Tribunal relied on
the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Agricultural Produce
and Market Committee 291 ITR 419 too. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted
registration u/s.12A of the Act. Registration was granted prospectively with
effect from the date of filing of application for registration, i.e. for the A.Y.
2010-11 onwards. Further, in connection with the alternate ground of the
assessee, in the context of earlier application dated 04-05-2006, regarding
granting of deemed registration, CIT observed that the said alternate
ground becomes redundant. The Tribunal relied on the order of ITAT, Pune
Bench in the case of Auto Cluster Development & Research Institute Ltd. in
ITA Nos. 20/PN/2012 and 265/PN/2012 order dated 27-11-2013, which is
relevant for the proposition that there is no automatic or deemed
registration if application filed u/s.12A of the Act when the same is not
disposed of within a period of six months. On these facts, before us,
assessee raised the above grounds seeking registration in response to the
earlier application dated 04-05-2006.
Narrating the above facts, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted
that this aspect of granting registration w.e.f. 04-05-2006 was not
adjudicated by the CIT by passing a speaking order. The fact of considering
this issue as ‘redundant’ speaks about the absence of speaking order on
the issue. As per Ld. Counsel, the finding of ‘redundancy’ does not explain
the absence of registration from 04-05-2006 to 31-08-2009. Requesting
for remanding this issue to the file of CIT, raised in the grounds, Ld.
Counsel brought our attention to the order of Pune Bench of the Tribunal
in ITA No.123/PN/2011 dated 29-06-2012 and the Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society for the Promotion of
Education in Civil Appeal No.1478 of 2016 and submitted that the
assumption of deemed registration when the application u/s.12A of the Act
was not adjudicated within a period of six months, was decided in favour of
the assessee. Similarly, relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Sutika Seva Mandir Vs. ITO in ITA Nos.
136/PN/2015 and 1060/PN/2015 dated 23-09-2016, Ld. Counsel for the
assessee mentioned that the said decision of the Tribunal is relevant for the
proposition for granting of deemed registration with effect from the date of
application when the CIT failed to attend to the application within a period
of six months. Ld. Counsel requested for directing the CIT for considering
the Application dated 04-05-2006 and condone the delay if any, and grant
deemed registration status to the assessee for the said period.
Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the CIT.
We heard both the parties on this issue of granting registration from
the date of application for registration u/s.12A of the Act. It is the finding
of the Tribunal that the assessee in principle, is entitled for registration and
accordingly, the Tribunal directed the CIT to grant registration
w.e.f. 31-08-2009. CIT granted the same in compliance of the order of the
Tribunal and, however, he treated the issue of granting registration based
on the original application dated 04-05-2006 as redundant. In the process,
he ignored the fact that the assessee lost the registration benefits with
effect from 04-05-2006 to 31-08-2009. Further, the fact of filing of original
application for registration and consequent benefits to the assessee are left
unattended or un-adjudicated.
As such, it is not the case of the Revenue that the said application for
registration was not filed at all or filed belatedly and therefore, the delay is
not condonable.
Further, before us, it is the request of the Ld. Counsel for the
assessee to remand this particular issue to the file of CIT for fresh
adjudication for want of a speaking order on this issue. On the issue of
deemed registration, we also perused the decisions cited before us by the
Ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is a fact that the assessee never received
any correspondence from CIT on the said original application dated
04-05-2006. Therefore, we find it relevant to direct the CIT-1, Pune to
consider the said judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.
Society for the Promotion of Education (supra) as well as the decisions of
the Tribunal and adjudicate the issue after granting reasonable opportunity
of being heard to the assessee. It is a settled legal issue that the CIT is
under obligation to pass an order within six months rejecting or accepting
the request of registration. Non-action of the CIT on such application
permits the assessee to have the benefit of deemed registration. In the
remand proceedings, the CIT shall pass speaking order after considering
the relevant facts and law. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the
assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) �ाियक सद� / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 25th April, 2018. Satish
आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत
अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT-1, Pune 3.
िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “ए” / 4. DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5.
आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार
स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune