Itta/139/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Christ Evangelical Luthern Ministries

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.139 of 2013 Date: 28.06.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax,Guntur. .....Appellant AND M/s Christ Evangelical Luthern Ministries,Guntur. ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A.No.139 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggestedquestions of law: i.In the facts and circumstances of the case,when the registration under Section 12AA of theIncome Tax Act was granted to the respondent-assessee with effect from 1.04.2006 onconsidering its application dated 5.09.2006,whether the order of the Tribunal holding that thesaid registration under Section 12AA of theIncome Tax Act to be granted to the respondent-assessee with effect from 1.04.2003 is noterroneous in law and liable to be set aside? ii.Whether the finding of the Tribunal that sincethe earlier application of the respondent-assesseedated 1.07.2004 has not been disposed of, theregistration granted by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (CIT) under Section 12AA of IncomeTax Act is deemed to have been granted witheffect from 1.04.2003 instead of 1.04.2006, is noterroneous in law and perverse being contrary tothe material on record and liable to be set aside? iii.Whether the Tribunal is justified in law indirecting the Assessing Officer to re-examine theclaim of the respondent-assessee for exemptionunder Section 11 of Income Tax Act in terms ofdeemed registration with effect from 1.04.2003? The appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal dated 05.07.2010 in relation to the assessment year2005-06. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gonethrough the impugned judgment and order. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal, at the first instance, has declared that the assessee is deemed to have beengranted registration. After passing the order, consequential order hasalso been passed. The said fact is as follows: “The assessee has filed an application forregistration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act on01.07.2004 and this application was entertained and wasnot disposed of and kept pending. Thereafter, theassessee filed second application on 5.9.2006, whichwas allowed and registration was granted with effectfrom 01.04.2006. Thereafter, the assessing officer didnot grant the benefit of registration prior to 2006.” The learned Tribunal after recording the fact of inaction on thepart of the Revenue department in not disposing of the application forgranting registration filed on 01.07.2004, it was found that there hasbeen no changed circumstances as to the activities of the respondent-assessee. Hence, the application, which was kept pending, wasliterally disposed of by the learned Tribunal declaring that therespondent-assessee is deemed to have been granted registrationwith effect from 01.04.2003. Consequently, the learned Tribunal setaside the adverse orders and remanded for fresh hearing. Therefore,we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________ G.ROHINI, J 28.6.2013 Gsn.