9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 491 - AT - Income TaxRejection of registration of society u/s 12A Held that - DIT(E) rejected the registration on extraneous considerations but also passed the order very belatedly beyond the time limit provided under the Act - DIT(E) is wholly bent on refusing registration on various extraneous considerations in almost all cases which have come up before him - DIT(E) was exceeding his jurisdiction and not following the jurisdictional High Court direction/ITAT Orders while considering the issues - Even though ITAT directs the DIT(E) to grant registration in many cases he is making some other conditions applicable which are beyond his purview - This Forum cannot ignore such blatant violations of judicial proprietary - Even though there is a direct jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of AMCs for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act DIT(E) took recourse to the judgment of another High Court decision given in the context of sec.10(23C) so as to deny the registration u/s 12A which was granted to the Seed Certification Agency by the DIT(E) - DIT(E) should be visited with costs for making assessee unnecessarily coming up in appeal Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements for registration. 3. Determination of 'charitable purpose' under section 2(15) of the Act. 4. Applicability of jurisdictional High Court decisions. 5. Conduct of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) in processing applications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act: The core issue in this case is the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, an Agricultural Market Committee (AMC), had initially applied for registration on 30.05.2007. The application was rejected by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) [DIT(E)] due to the assessee's failure to furnish complete replies and produce necessary financial documents. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements for registration: The ITAT had previously set aside the DIT(E)'s order due to procedural irregularities, specifically that the order was not signed by an authorized officer. The matter was remitted back to the DIT(E) with instructions to pass an order on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity. Despite this, the DIT(E) again rejected the application, citing the incomplete submission of financial statements and the inability to verify the actual activities of the AMC. 3. Determination of 'charitable purpose' under section 2(15) of the Act: The DIT(E) argued that the AMC's activities did not qualify as 'charitable' under section 2(15) of the Act, as they were primarily aimed at providing marketing facilities to agriculturists, which could be seen as a commercial activity. The DIT(E) also referenced a judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that the activities of an Agricultural Market Committee do not fall within the ambit of 'charitable purpose'. 4. Applicability of jurisdictional High Court decisions: The assessee contended that the jurisdictional High Court had previously directed the Revenue to grant registration under section 12A to similar entities. The ITAT noted that the DIT(E) had relied on a later judgment concerning a different issue (approval under section 10(23C)) and not directly related to the registration under section 12A. The ITAT emphasized that the High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Agricultural Market Committee, which supported the registration under section 12A, should be followed. 5. Conduct of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) in processing applications: The ITAT criticized the DIT(E) for rejecting the registration based on extraneous considerations and not adhering to the jurisdictional High Court's directives. The ITAT observed that the DIT(E) had a pattern of exceeding his jurisdiction and not following judicial directions, which led to unnecessary appeals. Consequently, the ITAT imposed a cost of Rs. 2000 on the DIT(E), to be recovered from his salary and paid to the assessee. Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the DIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration under section 12A and directed the Assessing Officer to grant the registration. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and costs were imposed on the DIT(E) for procedural misconduct. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2014.
|
