Process-cum-Procduct Development Centre, Meerut v. CIT, Meerut

ITA 5013/DEL/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 501320114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAAJP1090M
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5013/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Process-cum-Procduct Development Centre, Meerut
Respondent CIT, Meerut
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 17-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 17-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 17-01-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 15-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI C.L.SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T. A. NO.5013/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: N.A. PROCESS-CUM-PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX CENTRE SPORTS GOODS COMPLEX VS. MEERUT. DELHI ROAD MEERUT (U.P.). PAN: AAAJP1090M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS). RESPONDENT BY: SHRI H.K. LAL SR. DR. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 9.09.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX UNDER SEC. 1 2AA(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- THAT THE ORDER U/S 12-A DATED 29-09-2010 RECEIVED ON 04-10- 2010 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 30-09-2010 BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12-A ON 26-03 -2006. HENCE REGISTRATION AFTER SIX MONTHS IS DEEMED REGIS TRATION U/S 12-A AFTER 30-09-2010. 2 THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS TOTALLY CHARITABL E LD. C.I.T. IS WRONG TO REFUSE REGISTRATION ON THE BASIS OF GRANT RECEIVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR FEES CHARGED FROM THE TRAINEES UN LESS UNTIL IT PROVES THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM TRAINEES COMES UNDER THE NATURE OF TRADE COMMERCE OR TRADE. THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE SELF EMPLOYS SERVICE SOC IETY VS C.I.T. 247 ITR 18 IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSES SEES CASE. HENCE THE LD. C.I.T. IS WRONG TO REFUSE REGISTRATIO N U/S 12-A OF I.T. ACT ON THE OTHER HAND HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CITY MONESTRY SCHOOL VS. UNION OF INDIA 315 ITR 48 IS RELEVANT AND BINDING UPON C.I.T. MEERUT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION WITH A REQUES T TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SYNOPSIS ALONG WITH THE AFORESAID APPLICATION DATED 15.01.2011. 4. IN THIS CASE REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 12A APPLI ED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED OR CANCELLED. IN THE O RDER DATED 29.09.2010 THE LEARNED CIT HAS STATED THAT AN APPLICATION FOR GRAN T OF REGISTRATION UNDER SEC. 12A WAS FILED ON 26.03.2010. HOWEVER IN THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR R EGISTRATION ON 26.03.2006 SAYING THAT THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 12A IS BARRED BY L IMITATION ON 30.09.2010. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT THE REGISTRATION AFT ER SIX MONTHS IS TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED REGISTRATION U/S 12A. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BEFORE US A COPY OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN FORM NO.1 0A AND ON PERUSAL 3 THEREOF WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION IS DATED 26.0 3.2010 AND NOT 26.03.2006 AS WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE REFORE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS EXPIRES ON 30.09.2010. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS PASSED HIS ORDER ON 29.09.2010 WHICH IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. MERE BECAUSE THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2010 HAS BEEN RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON 04.10.2010 IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSE IS REJECTED. 5. COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE WE FIND THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SEC. 12AA(3) WITH THE CONCLUS ION THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12AA GRANTED TO THE TRUST IS HEREBY CANCELLED. THI S WOULD GO TO MEAN THAT THE REGISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED U/S 12AA TO THE AS SESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN CANCELLED UNDER SEC. 12AA(3) OF THE ACT. SUB-SEC. (3) OF SEC. 12AA PROVIDES THAT WHERE A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION HAS B EEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SEC. (1) OF SEC. 12AA OR HA S OBTAINED REGISTRATION AT ANY TIME U/S 12A (AS IT STOOD BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 1996) AND SUBSEQUENTLY COMMISSIONER IS SATISFI ED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NO T BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITU TION AS THE CASE MAY BE HE 4 SHALL PASS AN ORDER IN WRITING CANCELLING THE REGIS TRATION OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION. IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED IN THAT SUB-SEC . THAT NO ORDER U/S 12AA(3) SHALL BE PASSED UNLESS THE CONCERNED TRUST OR INSTI TUTION HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE PRES ENT CASE THE CIT HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A ON 26.03.2010 BUT IN THE CONCLUDING PART OF HIS ORDER HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE REGISTRATION U NDER SEC. 12AA OF THE ACT GRANTED TO THE TRUST WAS THEREBY CANCELLED. NO COP Y OF REGISTRATION EARLIER GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US . IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT NOTHING IS MENTIONED ABOUT ANY REGISTRATION EARLIER GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 12A OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2010 PASSED BY THE CIT IS CON TRADICTORY IN ITSELF. THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT WHILE PASSING THE OR DER. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL (REGD.) VS. UNION OF INDIA (2009) 315 ITR 48 WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND R ULES AND FOUND THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER ANY PROPERTY REMAINING AFTE R MEETING OUT THE LIABILITY 5 ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE ASSOCIATION SHALL BE TRAN SFERRED TO ANY OTHER TRUST OR ASSOCIATION HAVING SIMILAR OBJECTS. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE SURPLUS REMAINING IN THE ASSESSEES HAND SHALL BE D ISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE MEMBERS OR NOT OR WHETHER THE ASSOCIATION AS EXISTS FOR PROFIT OR NOT. ALL THESE NEED TO BE ENQUIRED INTO BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. THE CIT SHALL ALSO LOOK INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS A C ASE OF FRESH REGISTRATION BEING NOT GRANTED BY HIM OR THE CANCELLATION OF RE GISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED EARLIER U/S 12A OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDI NG REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO MAKE SUCH SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE CIT AS HE TH INKS FIT AND PROPER IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE AND SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRO DUCE OR FURNISH ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OR MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING THE AS SESSEES CLAIM FOR REGISTRATION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IM MEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER ON 17.01.2011. SD/- SD/- (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (C.L. SETHI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH JANUARY 2011. 6 ITA NO.5013/DEL/2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT.