TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Earlier the Tribunal heard and disposed off the appeal. On the Revenue preferring appeal against the order of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has restored the matter by observing that the Tribunal did not advert to various aspects on factual matrices which resulted in rejection of application by the Commissioner on merits. It is pursuant to such restoration that the instant proceedings have taken place. 3. The factual panorama is that the assessee filed application u/s.80G of the Act in the prescribed form on 26-02-2009. The ld. CIT on first page of the impugned order held that he ought to have passed the order within a period of six months from the date of application. However, noting that the delay was caused by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of 19 days. As the CIT actually passed the order on 28-03-2010, the Tribunal held that the same was "beyond the prescribed period under Rule 11AA of the I.T. Rules and as such the certificate u/s.80G(5) is deemed to have been granted to the assessee". 6. Then from para 16 onwards, the Tribunal dealt with the issue on merits and held that the CIT ought to have granted registration to the assessee u/s.80G thereby allowing the assessee's appeal. 7. The Revenue approached the Hon'ble High Court raising the following questions of law, which were admitted on 10-12- 2012: "1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in Law and Facts, holding that the respondent assessee society's action in maintaining separate account in respect of vernacu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferent that of the case of the respondent in whose case has reported various discrepancies and violations which indicate not only the Chairman and Secretary but also the respondent assessee has violated in discharging its duties and as such the decision relied upon by the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the case?. 8. The Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 23.7.2015, considered the questions raised before it and then restored the matter for fresh consideration. Since the questions raised and admitted by the Hon'ble High Court were only on merits and not on the time limitation, which issue was otherwise decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court had no occasion to deal with such issue. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th in which such application was made. At the material time, the period of six months was to be reckoned from the date on which the application was made. In case the order refusing or granting approval is not passed within a period of six months, then the moot question arises as to whether the passing of order belatedly would be considered as valid. 11. In the context of section 12AA wherein again there is a requirement for grant of approval u/s.12A within a period of six months, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT and Another Vs. Society for the Promotion of Education (2016) 382 ITR 6 (SC) has held that once application for registration u/s.12AA was made and in case the same was not responded to within six months, it would be taken that th....