2017 (3) TMI 1919 - HC - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s 12AA - application seeking review of our judgment 2017 (1) TMI 1006 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - review-applicant submitted that this Court has observed that admittedly no registration certificate under Section 12A was granted to review-applicant - HELD THAT - As office of CIT confirmed to review-applicant that registration certificate u/s 12A was granted on 22.09.1987 but despite repeated query, no such copy of registration certificate has been placed before us. No such certificate was available before Tribunal or other Revenue Authorities when the matters were decided and when we decided this appeal at that time also, no such certificate was produced. Today also no such certificate has been placed before us. Review-applicant contended that this letter should be deemed to be registration certificate but its language is very clear and this shows registration certificate was granted on 22.09.1987 but as a matter of fact no such registration certificate is shown to exist at all. No ground of review of our judgment.

Summary

Issues:
Review of judgment based on the existence of registration certificate under Section 12A.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking review of a previous decision in Income Tax Appeal No. 55 of 2016. The review-applicant claimed that a registration certificate under Section 12A was granted to them on 22.09.1987, as confirmed by the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut in a letter dated 03.06.2015. The Tribunal also acknowledged this fact in their decision. However, despite the confirmation from the CIT's office, no physical copy of the registration certificate was presented before the Court during the appeal or the review process. The Court noted that the absence of the certificate in all instances raised doubts about its actual existence, despite the communication from the CIT's office.

The Court emphasized that the letter from the CIT's office could not be considered a substitute for the actual registration certificate. It was observed that the language of the letter clearly indicated the grant of the certificate on 22.09.1987, but the lack of physical evidence raised concerns about the authenticity of the claim. The Court highlighted that the absence of the registration certificate during the initial proceedings, as well as in the review application, did not provide sufficient grounds to overturn the original judgment. Consequently, the Court rejected the review application, citing the lack of concrete evidence in the form of the registration certificate to support the claim made by the review-applicant.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of presenting tangible evidence, such as the actual registration certificate, to substantiate claims made during legal proceedings. The Court's decision was based on the absence of physical proof despite the verbal confirmation from the CIT's office, highlighting the necessity of providing conclusive documentation to support assertions in matters of legal significance.