2012 (12) TMI 844 - HC - Income Tax

Registration under Section 12A - Ext.P3 communication requiring the petitioner to rectify the defects - non-compliance of Ext.P3 thus Ext.P2 application for registration rejected - registration u/s 12A for the year 2010-2011 granted as per Ext.P8 - petitioner s request for restoration of Ext.P2 application - Held that - Ext.P9 judgment has attained finality wherein it has been specifically found that Ext.P2 application was not pending. It was therefore that the petitioner sought restoration of Ext.P2. That request was considered by this Court and in Ext.P10 order, it was directed that the petitioner can seek restoration and the same will be considered if permissible in law. The authority has held in Ext.P11, that such a request is not permissible. The correctness of this conclusion of the respondent will depend upon the provisions of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. Having gone through this statutory provision, it is unable to find any authority for the respondent to restore an application under Section 12A once rejected. If that be so, it is not permissible to restore an application and if so, the conclusion in Exts.P11 and P13 that the petitioner s request for restoration of Ext.P2 application is impermissible, cannot be said to be faulted. In that view of the matter, no tenable grounds justifying interference in the impugned orders.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of registration application under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Subsequent application for registration and judicial review.
3. Review petition seeking restoration of the initial application under Section 12A.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Trust operating an Engineering College, applied for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The application was initially rejected due to identified defects, leading to subsequent communication for rectification. Non-compliance resulted in the rejection of the application by an order issued later.

2. Following the rejection, the petitioner submitted a fresh application, stating that the defects were rectified. However, a subsequent application for registration under Section 12A for a different year was granted, leading to a judicial review. The Court acknowledged the registration for the new period but allowed the petitioner to pursue registration for previous periods by submitting appropriate applications.

3. A review petition was filed seeking restoration of the initial application, which was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh application or seek appropriate remedies to restore the original application, if permissible under the law. Despite subsequent representations seeking reconsideration, the authority maintained that restoration was not legally feasible under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.

4. The final judgment considered the legality of the authority's decision regarding restoration of the initial application. The Court upheld the previous findings that the initial application was no longer pending and that restoration was not permissible under the law. The judgment emphasized the absence of statutory provisions allowing for the restoration of an application under Section 12A, thereby dismissing the writ petition challenging the authority's decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural history, judicial review, and legal interpretation regarding the rejection and restoration of registration applications under the Income Tax Act.