Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Udaipur v. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Udaipur Range, Udaipur(D.b.income Tax Appeal

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, UDAIPUR VS. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, UDAIPUR RANGE, UDAIPUR(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.67/10) Dated:- 10.5.16. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHAHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.Anjay Kothari, for the appellant.Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the respondent. 1.This appeal is directed against order dated 11.6.09 of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur,whereby the appeal preferred by the assessee, against the order dated5.12.08 of Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Udaipur, grantingregistration to the appellant under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short “the Act”) w.e.f. 1.4.05 instead of w.e.f. 1.4.02, standsdismissed. 2.The facts in brief are that the appellant submitted an applicationbefore CIT for grant of registration under Section 12A of the Act w.e.f.1.4.02. The application was rejected by the CIT vide order dated6.10.05. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the appellant wasallowed by the ITAT vide order dated 17.11.06, with the direction toCIT to grant registration to the appellant under Section 12A of the Act.In compliance of the order passed by the ITAT as aforesaid, CITgranted registration to the appellant under Section 12A of the Actw.e.f. 1.4.05 vide order dated 5.12.08. Aggrieved by the denial ofregistration w.e.f. 1.4.02 as applied for, the appellant preferred anappeal before the ITAT, which stands dismissed by the order impugneddated 11.6.09. Hence, this appeal. 3.The appeal preferred by the assessee was admitted by acoordinate Bench of this court, vide order dated 11.8.10 on thefollowing substantial question of law: “Whether while passing the impugned order dated 11.06.2009,the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has misconstrued thepurport meaning and effect of the earlier order dated17.11.2006?” 4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that ITAThas seriously erred in rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellantagainst the order passed by the CIT, granting the registration underSection 12A of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.05 instead of w.e.f. 1.4.02, as appliedfor. Learned counsel submitted that in the similarly situated cases, theITAT had condoned the delay in making the application for registrationand therefore, there was no justification for rejecting the application ofthe appellant for the grant of registration w.e.f. 1.4.02 as prayed for.Learned counsel would submit that as a matter of fact, the controversyinvolved in this appeal stands covered by a Bench decision of this courtdated 18.3.08 rendered in “Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.U.M.S.,Jaisalmer”, (2011) 331 ITR, 135. 5.Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submitted thatthe controversy involved in the present appeal stands covered by thedecision of this court in K.U.M.S., Jaisalmer's case (supra) andtherefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 6.A bare perusal of the order passed by the ITAT dated 17.11.06reveals that while allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee and setting aside the order passed by the CIT, Udaipur, denying theregistration to the appellant as applied for, no restriction was imposedby the ITAT that the appellant shall be granted registration w.e.f.1.4.05 instead of w.e.f. 1.4.02, as applied for, and therefore, ignoringthe earlier order, the order impugned passed by the ITAT refusinggrant of registration from the date of inception of the Trust was notjustified. Moreover, even according to the Revenue, the issue withregard to condonation of delay in making the application forregistration deserves to be decided in favour of the Revenue in light ofBench decision of this court in K.U.M.S., Jaisalmer's case (supra). Inthis view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed. setting aside the order passed by the CIT, Udaipur, denying theregistration to the appellant as applied for, no restriction was imposedby the ITAT that the appellant shall be granted registration w.e.f.1.4.05 instead of w.e.f. 1.4.02, as applied for, and therefore, ignoringthe earlier order, the order impugned passed by the ITAT refusinggrant of registration from the date of inception of the Trust was notjustified. Moreover, even according to the Revenue, the issue withregard to condonation of delay in making the application forregistration deserves to be decided in favour of the Revenue in light ofBench decision of this court in K.U.M.S., Jaisalmer's case (supra). Inthis view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7.In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned passedby the ITAT, confirming the order passed by the CIT refusing theregistration to the appellant under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.02 is setaside. The CIT, Udaipur is directed to grant the registration to theappellant under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.02, while condoning the delayin making the application for registration. No order as to costs. (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (SANGEET LODHA),J.