By Sri. M.v.seshachala, Senior Advocate For Sri Aravind v. Chavan, Advocate) Sri Aravind V. Chavan, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA ITA NO.825/2018 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, EXEMPTIONS, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. EXEMPTIONS, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.ARAVIND K.V., ADV.,) AND: M/S. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANA GANGA CAMPUS, BELAGAVI - 590 001, PAN: AAAJV 0064F. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04.06.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.8/Bang/2016. THIS APPEAL COMING ON SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT The present appeal is arising out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 04.06.2018 in ITA No.8/Bang/2016. 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 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. 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. 7. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.02.2021. 8. The other issues are left open. 9. The Department shall be free to file fresh appeal after the matter is decided by the Tribunal raising all the issues afresh including the other issues raised in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Consequently, pending I.A.s’ stands disposed of. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE SSD