TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h may have been found in the same order which was not interfered with by this Court, but what we find is that the decision of the coordinate Bench which was followed in rendering the subject decision by the Tribunal and essentially on the point of jurisdiction, was enough to conclude the controversy. The arguments of the assessee's representative on the applicability of proviso to Section 2 Clause (15), therefore, were strictly not required. They were not necessary for the decision on the point involved. Once on jurisdiction, the petitioner was on a sound footing, then, we do not think that the observations of the Tribunal would have any bearing on the assessments that have been framed for the same and subsequent assessment year. In cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the Tribunal when the final conclusions are in favour of the petitioner assessee/ appellant. Possibly convinced that such Appeal would not be tenable, this Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Looked at from any angle, both sides agree that disposal of the Writ Petition would result in the Appeal not surviving. It also can be disposed of. 4. The petitioner claims to be a Technical Professional Body for plastics in India. It is a successor to Plastics and Rubber Institution, London (Indian Section) and it started its activities in India. The objects are set out in paragraph 6 (page 3) of the petition and it is submitted that the activities cover a large spectrum. The main activities are education, training and manpower developme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an obvious and apparent mistake. The Tribunal partly accepted this Application on 7th October, 2014, but in the meanwhile, Revenue filed an Appeal against the order, namely, the substantive order dated 21st February, 2014 of the Tribunal. That Appeal was dismissed by this Court on 14th February, 2017 (Annexure J ). 10. Though the Petition was filed accompanying the Appeal, but Mr. Sridharan would submit that any order and clarifying the position or keeping the contentions open would satisfy the petitioner. 11. The apprehension of the petitioner is that pursuant to the Tribunal's order, now, a substantive assessment was undertaken and an order was passed by the Assessing Officer. That is challenged by the petitioner in the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration already granted under Section 12A can be cancelled only for the assessment year 2011-2012 and the subsequent years by considering the amended provision which is applicable from 1st June, 2010. Hence, the cancellation of registration by the Director for the assessment year 2009-2010 was not justified. 16. The Tribunal followed this view and then noted also the argument of the petitioner assessee that proviso to Section 2(15) is not attracted bearing in mind the objects and they being charitable in nature. Paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal refers to certain activities of the petitioner assessee. The Tribunal also refers to the observations of the Director of Income Tax and in paragraph 8, another argument of the assessee' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
