Itl/117/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. Vidarbha Cricket Association, Nagpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.23 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur.INCOME TAX APPEAL No.13 OF 2011The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.111 OF 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.114 OF 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.115 OF 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.117 OF 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.133 OF 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.136 OF 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.138 OF 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.139 OF 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur. -Vrs.- The Vidarbha CricketAssociation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. _______________________________________________________________________Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders of directionsCourt's or Judge's orders.and Registrar's Orders. Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for petitioner.Shri Dewani, counsel for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ANDP.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED :6 th OCTOBER, 2015 In the backdrop of order dated 10.9.2015 passed inthese matters, advocate Parchure submits that keeping thecorrectness or otherwise of the use of “deemed registration” byassessee open for appropriation consideration, the appellant isready and willing to adjudicate upon application moved byassessee on 1.4.2003. The order dated 10.9.2015 is reproduced below forready reference. “ We have heard Advocate ShriParchdure for appellant, and Advocate ShriDewani, for assessee. We have also perused theFull Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Courtin Income Tax Appeal No. 348 of 2008 decidedon 05.02.2015. Before proceedings to pass suitableorder in the matter, we note that in Appeal No.23 of 2011 revenue is before us challengingorder of ITAT setting aside the judgment of CITcancelling registration under Section 12AAgiven to assessee from 01.04.2009. In this situation, without prejudiceto his other arguments, and also to commentupon Full Bench Judgment, mentioned supra,advocate Shri Dewani has submitted thateligibility of assessee to registration for theperiod from 01.04.1999 till 31.03.2009 isindirectly accepted. Shri Parchure is disputingthis. According to him, application for suchexemption was moved for the first time on01.04.2003, and in it the registration has beensought from 01.04.1996. The other issue, which may therefore, fall for consideration of this Court, ishow the affairs of assessee are to be looked intoby the Department for period from 01.04.1999till 31.03.2009, if the contention that therecould not have been “deemed registration”, isaccepted. Shri Dewani has invited ourattention to the fact that there are severalCricket Associations in country, which havebeen given registration under Section 12AA andhence, it cannot be denied to this assessee. Healso points out that at this stage Income TaxDepartment is not coming with a singleinstance to disqualify assessee to suchregistration. Advocate Shir Parchure hasinvited our attention to the fact that theMumbai Cricket Association has not been giventhis registration. The other issue, which may therefore, fall for consideration of this Court, ishow the affairs of assessee are to be looked intoby the Department for period from 01.04.1999till 31.03.2009, if the contention that therecould not have been “deemed registration”, isaccepted. Shri Dewani has invited ourattention to the fact that there are severalCricket Associations in country, which havebeen given registration under Section 12AA andhence, it cannot be denied to this assessee. Healso points out that at this stage Income TaxDepartment is not coming with a singleinstance to disqualify assessee to suchregistration. Advocate Shir Parchure hasinvited our attention to the fact that theMumbai Cricket Association has not been giventhis registration. We do not wish to record any finalverdict at this stage. As noted supra, we are notinclined to keep the issue pending before thisCourt as it is engaging the department from01.04.1996 onwards. In this situation, when applicationdated 01.04.203 is still not expressly decided,we place matter for further consideration on28.09.2015. Parties to note that Court maydispose of matter finally, if it is otherwiseconvenient to the court.” Shir Dewani submits that after order dated10.9.2015, the assessee has also, by way of abundantprecaution, moved an independent applications requesting theauthorities to pass suitable orders on its application dated1.4.2003. Shri Dewani submits that in view of settled legalposition, the assessee has rightly conducted its affairs as havingdeemed registration. However, he has no objection if this issueis kept open for consideration after the decision on application dated 1.4.2003. In this situation, with the consent of parties, we passfollowing order - (1) Application dated 1.4.2003 moved bypetitioners for grant of registration under Section 12AA ofIncome Tax Act, 1961 shall be decided by competentauthorities within period of three moths from today. (2) the issue pertaining to conduct of assessee intreating itself as deemed registered is kept open and can beconsidered thereafter. Said conduct or its impact on otherappeals can also be examined after such adjudication. Partiesare given the liberty accordingly to raise all relevant challengesafter such adjudication. (3) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE