TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. The said application was rejected by an order dated September 26, 2007 which is under challenge before this Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 221/Coch/2014. Immediately after receipt of the order of rejection dated September 26, 2007, the assessee was wrongly advised to file another application for registration under section 12AA on July 30, 2007. When the said application was processed by the authorities, the assessee was also advised to file application for approval under section 10(23C) before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum. Eventually the assessee filed an application under section 10(23C) for approval on May 15, 2008. Since the application was filed for approval under section 10(23C), the application filed for registration under section 12AA for the second time on July 30, 2007 was redundant and the same was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner with the remarks "application withdrawn". Learned counsel further submitted that the assessee was advised to make another application for registration under section 12AA of the Act, accordingly, the third application was made for registration under section 12AA on March 31, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 found that there was no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned single judge. However, the Division Bench further clarified that if any appeal is filed before the Tribunal, the same shall be considered and disposed of untrammeled by any findings or observations made in the writ proceedings. This judgment of the Division Bench was further clarified by another judgment in I. A. No. 99 of 2014 dated February 4, 2014 clarifying that the disposal of the appeal shall not preclude the petitioner/assessee in prosecuting the appeal filed against the order passed under section 12AA of the Act before this Tribunal. 5. In view of the above facts, according to learned counsel, the assessee could not file appeal against the original order of rejection dated September 26, 2007. The assessee, according to learned counsel, was prosecuting wrong remedies before the Commissioner by filing successive applications and writ petition before the High Court. According to learned counsel, the assessee ought to have filed an appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner dated September 26, 2007. Due to wrong advice and prosecuting wrong remedy before the wrong forum the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive endorsed the facts as narrated by learned counsel for the assessee. The assessee was advised to file successive applications for registration instead of challenging the order of the Commissioner dated September 26, 2007 before this Tribunal in a manner known to law. The assessee also filed writ petitions before the High Court and review application. The High Court permitted the assessee either to file a fresh application or to file an application to restore the earlier application which was dismissed provided the same is permitted under law. The Commissioner posted the petition for hearing as per the order of the High Court. The Commissioner rejected the prayer for restoration on the ground that there is no provision for restoration in the Income-tax Act. It is a fact that there is no provision in the Income-tax Act to restore an application already dismissed for registration under section 12AA of the Act. If at all the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner it is for the assessee to challenge the same before the appellate forum. Without challenging that order, the assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner before the High Court by way of writ petition. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er rejected the application of the assessee on the failure of the assessee to produce certain material which was called for by letter dated July 10, 2007. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the assessee apparently complied with the requirement of the Commissioner and registration was also granted from financial year 2010-11. Therefore, giving one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all the details that may be required by the Commissioner may not prejudice the interests of the Revenue. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving one more opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary details/materials before the Commissioner would definitely promote the cause of justice. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the application filed for registration under section 12AA the impugned order of the Commissioner dated September 26, 2007 is set aside and the issue of registration under section 12AA of the Act is remanded back to the file of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall reconsider the issue on the basis of the material that may be filed by the assessee and hereafter decide the issue independently in accordance with law without being infl....