9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 436 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 11 - Deemed registration u/s 12AA - Charitable activity or not - no order was passed within 6 months from the date of application u/s 12A - HELD THAT - From the various pronouncements, the principle discernible is that, it is the bounden duty of the court to ascertain for what purpose the legal fiction has been created. It is also the duty of the Court to imagine the fiction with all real consequences and instances unless prohibited from doing so. That apart, the use of the term deemed has to be read in its context and further the fullest logical purpose and import are to be understood. It is because in modern legislation, the term deemed has been used for manifold purposes. We find it difficult to subscribe to the views expressed by the Kerala High Court in the case of TBI Education Trust 2018 (7) TMI 1737 - KERALA HIGH COURT , wherein the court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala 2000 (7) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT . The Supreme Court decision does not lay down any principle of law. In such circumstances, deemed registration cannot be granted on the ground that the application filed by the Trust under Section 12AA is not decided, for any good reason, within a period of six months from the date of filing. In the result, the Appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in allowing registration to the assessee disregarding the fact that the assessee trust is not a charitable organization, as the trust has not fulfilled the condition laid down for registration in section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that non-disposal of application for registration by granting or refusing registration before the expiry of six months as provided U/s.12AA(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 would result in deemed grant of registration. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Justification of Tribunal in Allowing Registration The Tribunal allowed the registration of the assessee trust, which was challenged on the grounds that the trust did not fulfill the conditions laid down in section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad (CIT(E)), had rejected the application for registration after considering the details of the activities carried out by the trust. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had mentioned an incorrect date for the receipt of the application, which led to the decision that the application was not decided within the stipulated period of six months, thus resulting in deemed registration. Issue 2: Deemed Grant of Registration The Tribunal held that non-disposal of the application within six months results in deemed registration, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Society for Promotion of Education. The Tribunal’s decision was based on the interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which specifies that every order granting or refusing registration shall be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was received. Court's Analysis and Judgment: The High Court examined the provision of Section 12AA of the Act, particularly sub-section (2), which sets the time limit for deciding the application for registration. The Court referred to various judgments, including the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Muzafar Nagar Development Authority, which held that non-disposal of an application within six months does not result in deemed registration. The Court emphasized that the legislature did not provide a deeming fiction in Section 12AA(2), and the mere use of the word "shall" does not make the provision mandatory. The Court further analyzed the legislative intent and the consequences of interpreting the provision as creating a deemed registration. It concluded that the correct interpretation is that non-disposal within six months does not automatically grant registration. The Court also noted that the assessee has a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek an expeditious decision if there is a delay by the Commissioner. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-assessee. The Court answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, holding that non-disposal of the application within six months does not result in deemed registration.
|
