9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "(1) The learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed appeal particularly when the order was rectifiable u/s 154. (2) The learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed benefit exemption u/s 11 particularly when the deduction u/s 12A was deemed to have been granted. (3) The above grounds are prejudiced to one another. (4) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal." 3. The appeal filed by assessee is barred by one day in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submitted that the CIT(A) has passed order u/s 250 of the Act on 20.06.2024. The appeal before this Tribunal was required to be filed within 60 days, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not taken any action. Therefore, the registration was deemed to have been granted in light of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Society for Promotion of Education, Allahabad (67 taxmann.com 264). The assessee contested that in AY.2012-13, it should have been treated as deemed registered u/s 12A of the Act and the demand of the same was a mistake apparent from record. The CIT(A) observed that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Society for Promotion of Education (supra) was delivered on 16.02.2016 and it was not a part of the 'record' for AY 2012-13 when the returns of the assessee was processed. Hence, the denial of the claim of the assessee u/s 11 cannot be called a mistake apparent from the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (vi) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 173 Taxman 322 (SC). 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court could be applied prospectively. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have deliberated on the case laws relied upon by Ld. AR of the assessee. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 31.08.2012 for AY 2012-13. The said return was processed on 11.01.2014 wherein claim of exemption u/s 11 was not allowed and demand of Rs. 5,28,360/- was raised. The assessee filed rectification petition u/s 154 before ITO(Exemption) which was rejected on 11.01.2018. The CIT(A) di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stake apparent from record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra) held that it is well settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a 'new rule' but to maintain and expound the 'old one'. In other words, the Judges do not make law; they only discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make a new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite sometime, the decision rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
