9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctify the defects mentioned therein. For non-compliance of Ext.P3, Ext.P2 application was rejected by Ext.P5 order issued on 26.09.2007. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application dated 28.11.2007 stating that the defects were rectified and requesting for reconsideration of their application. On its receipt, they were issued Ext.P7 communication to cure the defects mentioned therein and also requiring them to attend this office on 16.02.2008. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the statement filed by the respondent at that stage, the petitioner filed an application for the benefit under Section 10(23C)(vi) before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and that in view of the said application, it was presumed that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t reserving such remedies to the petitioner, this writ petition can be disposed of. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the third respondent to seek appropriate remedy for applying for registration under Section 12A with respect to the periods prior to the assessment year 2010-2011. It is also left open to the petitioner to challenge the dismissal of applications for exemption filed under Section 10(23A). Needless to say that the authority concerned will consider applications if any filed in this regard and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law at the earliest possible. 4. Therefore, the petitioner sought review of the judgment by filing R.P.No.180 of 2011. That R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has attained finality. In that judgment, 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, I am 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
