2023 (5) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Sundeep Pandhi, Adv. ORDER Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow passed in Income Tax Appeal Defective (ITAD) No. 55 of 2016 as well as the subsequent order passed in Review Petition No.17685 of 2017, by which the High Court has allowed the appeal(s) preferred by the Revenue quashing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and thereafter rejecting the review application preferred by the assessee, the assessee has preferred the present appeals. The facts leading to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fying whether any registration in favour of the assessee was issued under Section 12A of the Act or not. Therefore, the Commissioner was of the opinion that the assessment order was against the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the Commissioner set aside the assessment order. In appeal(s), at the instance of the assessee, the ITAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The order passed by the ITAT was the subject matter of appeal(s) before the High Court at the instance of the revenue. Taking into consideration the amendment in the year 1997, the High Court allowed the appeal(s) preferred by the revenue and set aside the order passed by the ITAT by observing that as the assessee has failed to produce the certificate of registrat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ill the year 2007-2008 when the assessee continued to avail the benefit of exemption solely on the basis of the registration in the year 1987 and it was never the case on behalf of the revenue and even the Commissioner that in the earlier years there was any certificate of registration or the registration was not granted. Even from the material on record, namely, a communication dated 03.6.2015 which was considered by the ITAT, it is apparent that the assessee was granted registration on 22.9.1987. Therefore it cannot be said that there was no registration at all. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is erroneous and is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X