TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation for registration u/s 12AA of the Act within six months from the end of the month in which the application was filed. According to the ld.representative, the Commissioner has to pass an order and communicate the same to the assessee within six months' period as provided in section 12AA(2) of the Act. In this case, according to the ld.representative, though the order was dated 25-02-2014 it was served on the assessee only on 11-03-2014. The ld.representative placed his reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Smt. Moni Senan (2001) 248 ITR 452 (Ker). The ld.representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Agricultural Income-tax Officer vs K. Joseph N Jacob (1995) 3 KTR 224 (Ker). Accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee of the assessee deposited Rs. 38,81,545 in State Bank of India. According to the ld.representative, though the Commissioner claims that the managing trustee admitted before the assessing officer that the above amount of Rs. 38,81,545 was the income of the trust, the assessee was not given any opportunity to rebut the allegations. The ld.representative further submitted that Shri Kurien Jospeh never admitted that it is the income of the trust. It is not known wherefrom the Commissioner got this information. According to the ld.representative, if at all the Commissioner has any material then, he ought to have put it to the assessee before placing reliance on the same. The ld.representative placed his reliance on various case laws including....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee for registration was disposed of within six months from the end of the month in which it was received. The copy of the order was also served on the assessee within 15 days. Therefore, according to the ld.DR, the impugned order of the Commissioner is not barred by limitation. 6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute with regard to the date of filing of the application, i.e. 05-08-2013. The date of the order on which the application was disposed of is also not in dispute, i.e. 25-02- 2014. The contention of the assessee is that the order should be served on the assessee before the period of limitation provided u/s 12AA of the Act. This Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght to be revised was passed". However, in section 12AA(2), the Parliament says that "Every order granting or refusing registration under clause (b) of sub section (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was received ..". Income-tax Act being a special enactment it will override all other enactments providing limitations. The Parliament in some cases used the words "no order shall be passed" thereby prohibiting the authority in passing the order whereas in some cases the language used is "shall be passed within the specified period". On a query from the bench what is the object behind using different languages in different places, the ld.representative clarified that the meaning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied date". This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in view of the language employed by the Parliament consciously, wherever there is prohibition from passing the order after the specified period, the order shall go out of the control of the officer who has passed the order before the specified period. However, wherever, "the order shall be passed" is mentioned, then, it shall be served on the assessee within a reasonable period so as to enable the concerned person to challenge the same in case the concerned person felt aggrieved. Once the order is served on concerned person, the effect of the order will come into force. Since the order is admittedly served within a period of two weeks, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that....