TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1967 ('UAPA'). The Tribunal constituted under the UAPA confirmed the ban by its order dated 4th June, 1993. 4. For the AY in question, i.e., AY 1993-94, the last date for filing of the return was 10th October, 1993. However, the return could not be filed as all the accounts of the Assessee were seized soon after the ban under the UAPA was imposed. On account of the failure of the Assessee to file a return, a notice dated 30th March, 1994 was issued to it under Section 142(1) of the Act. On 29th December 1994, a part of the accounts seized by the authorities pursuant to the ban order were released to it. These were the accounts of only the Delhi unit of the Assessee. 5. On 14th January 1995, the Assessee was once again banned under the UAPA. On 28th June 1995, the Tribunal constituted under the UAPA held that the Assessee was not engaged in any unlawful activity and lifted the ban. This was followed by a fresh notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act on 18th September, 1995. 6. Before the Assessing Officer ('AO') the Assessee pointed out at the hearing on 5th October, 1995 that its accounts that had been seized had only been released recently. Therefore more time was sought ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd was a carry forward of the earlier years. In terms of Sections 11(1)(a) and 12 of the Act this was a capital receipt. 10. The CIT(A) refused to confirm the order of the AO which allowed only 10% of the expenditure during the AY in question. This was a departure from the previous AYs where the expenditure incurred by the Assessee was allowed in full. Accordingly the addition made by the AO was deleted. 11. In its appeal before the ITAT against the above order of the CIT (A), the Revenue first raised only one ground which read as under: "In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) had erred in allowing exemption under Section 11 even though no order under Section 12A(a) was passed." 12. Subsequently by a written communication dated 18th July, 2002, the following additional ground was raised: "On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption under Section 11 even though the assessee had been banned on 10.12.92 for a period of two years under Section 6 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967." 13.By the impugned order dated 30th June 2003, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In para 16 of the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary, 2004, the following question was framed for consideration: "Whether exemption can be allowed under Section 11 of the Act to the Assessee despite the fact that the Assessee was not allowed registration under Section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also when there was failure on the part of the Assessee to comply with the provisions of Section 12A(b) of the Act?" 17.The question framed by this Court as above is actually a combination of two questions which ought to read as under: (i) Whether exemption can be allowed to the Assessee under Section 11 of the Act although the Assessee was not registered under Section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Could the Assessee be granted exemption under Section 11 of the Act when there was a failure on its part to comply with the provisions of Section 12A (b) of the Act? 18. When the above question was framed the Assessee had not entered appearance. It was an ex parte order. For a number of dates thereafter the present appeal was directed to be heard along with ITA Nos.145/2001 and 188/2002. Later both the said appeals were decided by this Court. The decisions are reported as Commissioner of Income Tax-XI v. Indian Nation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 288 (2) read with the Explanation thereunder. 23. The facts show that the accounts that had been seized by the authorities pursuant to the ban order under UAPA were only partially released on 29th December, 1994. The ban ultimately was lifted only on 28th June, 1995. On 5th October 1995, the Assessee wrote a detailed letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) seeking time to file the audit report. The Assessee inter alia pointed out: "Now for the period 1st April, 1992 to 9.12.92 also, comprising of 8 full months and 9 days, the books of accounts maintained by VHP were also seized and were inthe custody of Police Department mentioned above and, therefore, physically VHP did not have any access to these records. Now on 7.9.93 and 8.10.93, there were requests from VHP to the Police Department to release the books of accounts for preparation and finalisation of the same for filing the return under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1993-94." 24. It was submitted by Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, that there was no satisfactory explanation for the Assessee not filing the audit report even by the time of final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ITAT declined to permit the Revenue to do so "since the initial ground raised before the Tribunal questions the action of the CIT(A) in allowing the benefit of Section 11 although no order under Section 12A(a) has been passed by the Director of Income Tax (E). Moreover, the registration now has been granted and the other relates back to the date of the application." 28. There appears to be no justification for the Revenue to have not urged such a ground in its memorandum of appeal. The Court is also not able to agree with the contention of Ms. Malhotra that this is a pure question of law and could be raised at any time. It is a mixed question of law and fact. Consequently the Court is of the view that if the present appeal had not been admitted ex parteon the first date it is possible that the Court may not have framed a question on Section 12 A(b) of the Act. 29. Nevertheless the question having been framed, requires to be examined on its merits. The facts in Commissioner of Income Tax-XI v. Indian National Congress (I)/All India Congress Committee (supra) speak for themselves. There, the Assessee was a major political party. It had not filed the return and along with it the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ban was imposed on 14th January, 1995 and by a judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal by Justice K. Ramamurthy, the ban order was quashed on 20.6.1995. Due to the above ban, the books of Account of VHP Central Office, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 1993-94 were in the custody of Police Department. After lifting of the ban, these were collected and then the writing of books was completed and accounts finalised. There were various centres from where the accounts were to be collected before these could be audited. The present accounts for the Assessment Year 1993-94 consist of the accounts of (i) VHP Delhi Office, (ii) VHP Mumbai Office, (iii) Sanskriti Raksha Yojana Office, Mumbai, (iv) Madyanchal Office, Lucknow, (v) Uttaranchal Office, Delhi. Sanskriti Raksha Yojana Office accounts are audited at Mumbai and Madyanchal accounts are audited at Lucknow. The remaining three accounts are audited at Delhi. As regards Madyanchal, we are enclosing herewith the audited accounts which is already incorporated in the accounts furnished along with the return which is before your good self and it tallies. Similarly, we are also contacting Sanskriti Raksha Yojana Office at Mumbai for expeditiously s....