ORDER
1. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 31-10-2006 of the Commissioner, Hisar passed under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 granting registration to the assessee committee with effect from 1-4-2006 whereas the case of the assessee is that it should have been granted registration with effect from 1-4-1993 under Section 12A(a) read with Section 12AA(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee committee was established on 18-4-1992 and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1968 vide certificate dated 20-11-1992.
3. It is the case of the assessee that an application under Section 12A(a) of the Act was filed before Commissioner, Rohtak on 31-3-1993 which was received in the office of Commissioner, Rohtak on 6-4-1993. Notice for hearing was received from the Income Tax Officer, Hisar on 18-3-1999 and 20-5-1999 making enquiries about the claim for registration. These notices were duly complied vide letter dated 31-3-1999 and 2-7-1999. Notice was also issued by Commissioner, Panchkulla on 10-12-1999 and 17-11-1999 with regard to the said application. However, no intimation regarding grant of registration was received by the assessee. On 12-4-2006 the assessee filed an application with Commissioner, Hisar for issuing registration under Section 12A of the Act on the application dated 31-3-1993. However, the Commissioner, Hissar granted registration only with effect from 1-4-2006 the assessee was asked to explain the delay in making application for registration of the assessee committee. The assessee informed the Commissioner that the application was furnished on 31-3-1993/6-4-1993. The records of the assessee were transferred from Rohtak to Commissioner Panckulla and the queries raised by Commissioner, Panchkulla were also replied by letters 12-10-1999 and 17-12-1999. However, no order relating to registration was communicated to the assessee. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the assessee in making application. It was in action on the part of the Department which resulted in non issue of the certificate.
4. The plea of the assessee was not accepted by the learned Commissioner. It was observed that the office of Commissioner, Hisar came into existence only in July, 2001 and no such pendency has been received in his office from Commissioner, Panchkulla. Learned Commissioner therefore, presumed that the application of the assessee has already been decided by the Commissioner, Panchkulla. It was further observed by learned Commissioner that the old period cannot be taken into account and no application for registration was pending in his office before 1-4-2006. Since the assessee had submitted fresh application for issuing registration under Section 12AA of the Act on 18-4-2006, the registration to the assessee committee is allowed with effect from 1-4-2006.
5. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that learned Commissioner, Hissar has failed to appreciate that the assessees application for registration submitted in March, 1993 was never rejected by the Department. On the other hand, it was processed by the Department and further information desired by the Department on the said application was also supplied. Therefore, the presumption was that the certificate has been granted, although no formal certificate was issued. Also there is a presumption of grant of registration in view of the period of limitation prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 12AA of the Act. Failure on the part of the authority concerned, to pass an order within the statutory laid down period will give rise to presumption that registration as applied for by the assessee has been granted. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision reported as Karnataka Golf Association v. Director of Income Tax 91 ITD 1, Sardari Lal Oberoi Memorial Charitable Trust v. ITO (2007) 106 TTJ (Del) 468 and People Education and Economic Development Society v. ITO (2006) 104 TTJ (Chen-Trib) 467.
6. Learned Department Representative supported the order of Commissioner, Hisar and submitted that the registration has been granted by learned Commissioner, Hisar on the basis of fresh application submitted by the assessee on 18-4-2006. There is no presumption that if the certificate is not issued within the six months, the registration shall be deemed to have been granted. The only requirement of the statute is for passing an order within a period of six months and there is no deeming provision with regard to grant of certificate within the aforesaid period. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by learned Commissioner, Hisar calls for no interference.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not denied that the assessee had submitted an application under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31-3-1993/6-4-1993. It is also not denied that the record of the assessee were transferred from Rohtak to Panchkulla. The only reason for not accepting the assessees contention with regard to his application under Section 12A of the Act as recorded by learned Commissioner Hisar is that no such pendency has been received in his office from Commissioner, Panchkulla. Therefore, learned Commissioner, Hisar has presumed that the application of the assessee has already been decided by the Commissioner, Panchkulla. There is nothing on record to indicate that any effort was made by the office of Commissioner Hisar to find out from Commissioner, Panchkulla as to what happened to the registration application of the assessee. Sub-section 12A(1)(b) specifically provides that after satisfying himself about the object of the Trust or Institution and genuineness of its activities, the Commissioner shall pass an order in writing registering the Trust or Institution or shall, if he is not so satisfied, pass on order in writing refusing to register the trust or institution and a copy of such order shall be sent to the application. Sub-section (2) of Section 12AA of the Act further provides that every order for grant 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 under Clause (a) of Section 12A of the Act. There is nothing on record to show that this requirement was complied with, with regard to earlier application of the assessee. Learned Commissioner, Hisar has simply brusted aside the submission of the assessee with regard to his earlier application. The Department should have acted in refusing to register, if it was so satisfied, within the period of limitation prescribed by the provisions of Section 12AA(2) of the Act. Having not done, so, it lost the benefit of legally refusing to grant registration. This view finds support from, the various decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that learned Commissioner, Hisar has erred in not considering the request of the assessee for issue of certificate of registration with effect from 1-4-1993. We therefore, direct the Commissioner, Hisar to grant registration to the assessee society with effect from 1-4-1993 after verifying and calling for the relevant record from Commissioner, Rohtak.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
10. Pronounced in the open court.