9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ospective registration under section 12A - Held that:- We are satisfied that the Commissioner could not grant registration with retrospective effect. If that be so, the Commissioner could have granted registration only with effect from the commencement of the assessment year in which the application in question was made. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the view taken by the Commissioner or the Tribunal granting registration with effect from April 1, 2006 as there was no circumstances justifying the condonation of delay for the previous period or registration for any period prior to April 1, 2006. - Decided against assessee. - I. T. A. Nos 588 and 1529 of 2009 and 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of 2012. - - - Dated:- 31-10-2014 - ANTONY DOMIN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed an appeal before the Tribunal with an application to condone the delay of 445 days. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay and, accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, which was passed on December 19, 2008, I. T. A. No. 1529 of 2008 is filed. 5. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application on November 8, 2006, with a prayer to grant registration under section 12A of the Act with retrospective effect. On that application, registration was granted with effect from April 1, 2006. Challenging this order and complaining that the registration should have been granted with retrospective effect as prayed for, Appeal No. 494/Coch/08 was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Department, could not be proved by the appellant in any manner. The second application made by the appellant on March 10, 2006, was a defective one. The defect was not cured despite opportunities. This application also was rejected by order dated October 17, 2006. It was in such circumstances that the application was made on November 8, 2006. 10. The facts noted above show that the rejection of the defective application dated March 10, 2006 for registration with retrospective effect had attained finality. Thereafter, the first valid application made is the one dated November 8, 2006, which did not make out any valid circumstance for a retrospective registration under section 12A of the Act. In such a case, there was no circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
