9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was made, called for certain information as to the nature of assessee's activity. The DIT (Ex.) went through the several details furnished by the assessee and has come to a conclusion that there is absence of element of charity and therefore, the assessee's case is not a fit case for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act. The application of the assessee was rejected by the impugned order. 3. The assessee, apart from reiterating the contentions it had taken before the DIT (Ex.), has pointed out that the impugned order is hopelessly beyond the time prescribed under section 12AA(2) of the Act and the DIT(Ex.) had become functus officio on the expiry of limitation and could not have passed the impugned order, which is liable to be quashed. The assessee, in the present appeal, also seeks remedy by way of grant of registration on the principles of equity and justice. 4. We have heard the parties mainly on I he question of limitation. We have not heard the parties on the merits of the case. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the preliminary issue as regards the validity of the impugned order. 5. The learned Departmental Representative Shri Amitabhkumar, on the other ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the DIT (Ex.) by 31-7-1998. The impugned order has been passed on 17-12-2002, which is glaringly, or hopelessly beyond the time prescribed under section 12AA(2). The order, which is barred by limitation, is non est in law and is liable to be vacated. We, therefore, are left with no other alternative but to quash the impugned order. We, therefore, agree with the assessee that the DIT has become functus officio on the expiry of limitation and could not have passed the impugned order. 8. Now, the assessee wants us, on the principle of equity and justice, to order the grant of registration. The main contention of the assessee in this regard is that the Department cannot pass an order refusing to grant registration under section 12AA beyond the expiry of six months. Therefore, the Department could have either granted registration within a period of 6 months or should have refused registration within that period. It has refused registration after the period of limitation, which it could not do in the eye of law. Therefore, it follows that the assessee should be held to be entitled to registration on the basis of application submitted by it and the principles of equity and justice sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 12A(a) was mere filing of application for registration within the prescribed time. Where such an application was properly filed, exemption was to follow whether or not the trust or institution was, following such application, accorded registration. In other words, the Act did not provide for procedure for registration till such procedures were prescribed by introduction of section 12AA by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 with effect from 1-4-1997. The provisions of section 12AA, which are the bone of contention in the present appeal, are reproduced below :- "Section 12AA. Procedure for registration - (1) The Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, on receipt of an application for registration of a trust or institution made under clause (a) of section 12A, shall- (a) call for such documents or information from the trust or institution as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution and may also make such inquiries as he may deem necessary in this behalf; and (b) after satisfying himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities, he (i) shall pass an order in writing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority does not pass an order within the prescribed time limit, whether it follows that the application for registration should be taken to be granted or not. The assessee wants us to lay down this principle, which the learned Departmental Representative is vehemently opposing. The assessee has made an application within the prescribed time. The authority before whom such an application is made should have acted diligently within the time limit prescribed by the Act. Beyond the prescribed time limit, the said authority cannot act so as to deprive the assessee the benefit of registration. Even if the authority had granted registration after the prescribed time limit, although it is barred by limitation, the assessee would have accepted it since it is to its benefit and the Department would have accepted the said order as there is no right of appeal to the Department against the order granting registration to the assessee. In other words, the order granting registration to the assessee would have survived to the benefit of the assessee had said order been passed, although in the eyes of law, even such an order is liable to be questioned on the basis of principles of law of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
