Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), 3Rd Floor, Kailashheights, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur v. Shree Jain Samiti, Plot

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 47/2019 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), 3Rd Floor, KailashHeights, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Shree Jain Samiti, Plot No. 2, Behind Maheshwari Bhawan,Jhalawar Road, Kota ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Jain with Mr. Daksh PareekFor Respondent(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 19/08/2019 1.The Revenue’s appeal urges a substantial question of lawwith respect to interpretation of Section 12AA(2) of the IncomeTax Act. The assessee had sought exemption under that provisionby an application made on 09.03.2016. In due compliance withthe law, that application was decided on 15.09.2016, declining therequest. The assessee’s appeal resulted in a remand - by an orderdated 10.02.2017. Thereafter, the Commissioner did not decidethe remand but sought further documents and ultimately rejectedthat application under Section 12AA(2) (for want of thosematerials). The assessee’s appeal to the ITAT succeeded and itwas held that Section 12AA(2) (by which the application is decidedby deeming fiction), applied to the circumstances of the case. 2.Learned counsel made two-fold arguments; (i) that thedeeming fiction would not apply per se to remanded proceedingsand (ii) that in the facts of this case, the assessee did not deserveapplication of the deeming fiction since it never produced thedocuments sought. 3.This court is of the opinion that the substantial question oflaw urged by the Revenue does not arise in this case. The facts onrecord reveal that after the order remanding the application, theCommissioner-I wrote to the assessee seeking additionaldocuments on 14.08.2017; further documents were sought on10.10.2017 under a hearing given on 10.12.2017. Clearly even ifa reasonable period is accepted for receipt of the notice (afterremand dated 10.02.2019), the Commissioner acted beyond thebasic period stipulated under Section 12(2). In thesecircumstances, the question urged, i.e., whether the periodcontemplates remanded proceedings also does not arise. Thisquestion however is kept open. 4.For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the opinion that nointerference is called for. 5.The appeal is dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ ANIL KUMAR GOYAL /Jyoti/166