Tribunal Quashes Late Order, Grants Section 12A Registration, Dismissing Filing Defects in ITAT Appeal Outcome.

The ITAT quashed the impugned order by the DIT(Ex.) due to its issuance beyond the statutory six-month period, rendering it "non est in law." The Tribunal accepted the rectified appeal, dismissing defects in filing, and directed that registration u/s 12A be deemed granted, instructing the AO to proceed accordingly. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned order due to limitation.
2. Defects in the appeal filed.
3. Entitlement to registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order Due to Limitation:
The assessee, M/s. Karnataka Golf Association, applied for registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 23-1-1998. The DIT (Ex.), Bangalore, passed the impugned order on 17-12-2002, which is beyond the six-month period prescribed u/s 12AA(2). The Tribunal held that the order is "non est in law" and liable to be vacated as it was passed after the expiry of the limitation period, rendering the DIT(Ex.) functus officio.

2. Defects in the Appeal Filed:
The Departmental Representative argued that the appeal was defective as it was not signed in accordance with section 140 of the Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the defect was rectified within the granted time, and the appeal papers were signed by the Honorary Secretary. Referring to the ITAT decision in the case of Wipro Information Technology Ltd., the Tribunal accepted the rectified appeal and proceeded to entertain it on merits.

3. Entitlement to Registration u/s 12A:
The Tribunal observed that the Department failed to act within the prescribed time limit, and thus, the application for registration should be deemed granted. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department cannot refuse registration by not acting within the statutory period. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be granted registration based on its application dated 23-1-1998, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to proceed as if registration had been granted by the DIT(Ex.) u/s 12A of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.

---