TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961. 2.The order has been passed beyond the time allowed as per provisions of section 12AA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3.The order passed is arbitrary and against the facts of the case. 4.Any other matter arising at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed an application for grant of registration before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradum. The Commissioner, on perusal of the application found that the assessee was registered with the Registrar of Societies on 18-1-2000 and the application for grant of registration was filed on 2-8-2001 which was late by one year, seven months and three days and no reliable reply had been submitted. The Commissioner, after having mentioned the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yond the statutory period prescribed under the Act. Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Sardari Lal Oberoi Memorial Charitable Trust v. ITO [2005] 3 SOT 229 (Delhi) the application filed under section 12AA of the Act is deemed to have been allowed. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has failed to establish that it has satisfied the conditions laid down under section 12AA of the Act. Unless the conditions laid down under section 12AA of the Act are satisfied the application filed under section 12AA of the Act cannot be deemed to have been allowed merely on the ground that the impugned order has been passed beyond the period prescribed u/s 12AA(2) of the Act. Thus, he has supported the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey fail to act within the timeframe, the application should be treated as having been acted upon in favour of the applicant. In the instant case, the assessee had done what was expected of it under the law, i.e., to seek registration by making an application. The department should have acted vigilantly in refusing to register, if it was so satisfied, within the period of limitation prescribed by the provisions of section 12AA(2). Having not done so, it lost the benefit of legally refusing to grant registration. The department, by its latches, could not be said to have taken the same position by not acting within the time limit prescribed. Once the period of limitation prescribed under section 12AA(2) expired, the subsequent impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
