Case Law Details
Visvesvaraya Technological University Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Bangalore)
Assessee has moved an application for registration under section 12A on 25.05.1999, but this application was not disposed of by the CIT and it was kept pending and assessee was persuaded by the Revenue to file another application for registration. Vide letter dated 2 1.01.2002, the assessee has also requested the CIT to grant registration under section 12A on the basis of its application filed on 25.05.1999 w.e.f. 01.04.1998 and delay in filing of application for registration of less than 2 months may kindly be condoned. This application of the assessee was also not adjudicated upon by the CIT. Other applications for registration under section 12A was rejected by the CIT on technical grounds despite the fact that at the relevant point of time, assessee was enjoying the recognition under section 80G of the Act. Subsequently, the registration under section 12A was granted to the assessee after making a detailed verification of the records and enquiry. At no point of time, the Revenue has made out a case that assessee was not engaged in educational activities. Assessee is a university established by the Government of Karnataka and Act of State Legislature i.e., VTU Act, 1994, for the purpose of ensuring proper and systematic instructions, teaching, training and research & development of engineering technology and allied sciences in the state of Karnataka and matters connected therewith. Even the Apex Court, while adjudicating the issue of exemption under section 10(23)(c)(IIIAB) of the Act, has categorically observed in para 9 of its judgment that the surplus accumulated over the period has been ploughed back for the educational purposes and the University exists solely for the educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit. The contention of the assessee that as of now 203 engineering colleges located throughout the state of Karnataka are affiliated to the assessee universtiy and more than 4 lakh students are studying in various under graduate and post graduate course are not disputed by the Revenue. The registration was finally granted to the assessee under section 12A w.e.f. 01.04.2016 without recording the reasons for not acceding to the university’s request for grant of registration with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 though assessee has specifically requested for registration in his application. Till date, the Commissioner has not adjudicated the application for registration under section 12A filed on 25.05.1999. They have chosen to remain silent on this application. During the course of hearing, the Revenue could not answer the query of the Bench as to why this application was not disposed off. The Revenue cannot take the benefit of its own wrong. As per the provisions of section 1 2AA, which was brought on statute by the Finance Act, 1996 w.e.f. 01.04.1997, all applications filed before 1st day of June 1998 shall stand transferred on that day to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner may proceed to such application under that sub section from the stage at which they were on that day and as per provisions of sub section 2 of sub section 12AA, every order granting or refusing registration under clause (b) of sub section 1 shall be passed before the expiry of 6 months from the end of the month in which the application was received under section 12A of the Act. As per provisions of section 1 2A (i)(a), application for registration of trust or institution in the prescribed form should be filed within a period of one year from the date of creation of the trust or the establishment or the institution. Undisputedly, the trust was created on 01.04.1998 and application was moved on 25.05.1999. There was delay of 1 month 25 days for which assessee has moved an application requesting therein that the delay may be condoned and registration may be granted from the date of its inception. Though the Revenue was required to dispose off the application for registration under section 12A within a period of 6 months but it was not done. In the light of these facts and the judgments of the Apex Court in the caseof CIT Vs. Society for promotion of Education (supra), the registration is deemed to have been granted from the date of inception of the University as the delay in filing of the application was only 1 month and 25 days for which request for condonation of delay was moved. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT and direct him to grant registration w.e.f. 01.04.1998. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT, inter alia, on the following grounds:
1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(E)] under section 12A of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the I-T Act), to the extent it is not retrospective in effect, is arbitrary, erroneous, unreasonable and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
