IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE JUSTICE (Retd.) DEV DARSHAN SUD, PRESIDENT & SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1181/Chd/2010 (U/s 12AA) M/s Agriculture Produce Market Vs. CIT, Committee, Kangra Shimla PAN No. AACTA4554B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sunil Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal, CIT DR Date of hearing : 17.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2016 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM This is appeal filed by assessee against order of C IT, Shimla dated 20.7.2010 wherein Ld. Commissioner has refused to condone delay in filing application by assessee in Form No. 10A, seeking registration u/s 12AA of Income-tax Act, 1961 from assessment year 2003-2004. Ld. Commissioner was of view that there is no power vested in his office to condone delay in filing application for registration and that registration if at all can be granted only w.e.f. assessment year 2010-11 as application filed was on 24.8.2009. 2 2. Mr. Sunil Sehgal, Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that Ld. Commissioner should have condoned delay and granted registration u/s 12AA of Act. He relied on decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT-II Vs. Market Committee, Grain Market, Sector 26, Chandigarh (2010) 43 IT Reps 141 (P&H) dated 29.4.2010. He further submitted that assessee should be granted registration u/s 12AA of Act and for this proposition he relied on decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in case of CIT v Krish Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shri Madhopur (2011) 331 ITR 174 (Raj). 3. Ld. DR, Shri Ravi Sarangal, CIT DR submitted that CIT does not have power to condone delay in filing application u/s 12AA of Act. 4. After hearing rival contentions, we find that Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in coming to conclusion that he does not have power to grant registration retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2003. 5. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of C IT-II, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Market Committee, Chandigarh (2010) 43 I.T. Reps 141(P&H) held as follows: 5.The view of Tribunal is discernible from last para of its order. It has been observed that had assessee-respondent been party to proceedings before Delhi Bench where 251-Market Committees of Punjab and Haryana were parties, then question of seeking condonation of delay would not have arisen. It is pertinent to mention that Delhi Bench of Tribunal had condoned delay in its order dated 14.3,2005, which is now reported as Market Committee Sullar Gharat and others v. GIT, (2005) 94 TTJ (Del) 692. Against aforesaid view of Delhi Bench even Special Leave Petition, has been dismissed. assessee-respondent had also filed application, which was delayed by about three years, and sought condonation of delay. prayer for condoning delay and registration with effect from 1.4.2002 was based on facts that all other Market Committees have been granted registration with effect from 1.4.2002, therefore, prayer for condonation of' delay was claimed to be justified.. Tribunal is also influenced by fact that assessee- respondent is Government organisation and no prejudice would be caused if registration is granted with retrospective date. 6.The Tribunal has further found that assessee-respondent was under reasonable belief that Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board had been granted registration after condonation of delay vide order dated 24.10.2008, which benefit would automatically ensure to assessee-Market Committee. Tribunal found explanation plausible and Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 3 14.3.2005 held Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board entitled to registration under Section 12AA of Act holding that their activities are charitable in nature. Even assessee respondent was granted registration under Section 12AA with effect from 1.4.2005 and charitable nature of assessee has not been disputed. 7.Having heard learned counsel we are of Considered view that once on basis of numerous factors Tribunal has condoned delay and has directed registration of assessee-respondent with effect from 1.4.2002 then discretion exercised by Tribunal would not be open to interference merely because department is holding contrary view or another view is possible. Punjab State Agricultural Market Board has already been granted exemption and registration vide order dated 14.3.2005. Moreover, there was bona fide belief with assessee- respondent that benefit of registration would enure to it as well. charitable nature of assessee-respondent is undisputed as registration has in any case granted w.e.f 1.4.2005. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain appeal because no question of law much less substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 6. perusal of this decision takes us to conclusion that Ld. C IT(A) can grant registration from earlier date by condoning delay in making of application for registration by assessee. 7. In view of above, we set aside issue to file of Ld. C IT for considering application of assessee for condonation of delay and grant of registration u/s 12 w.e.f. 01.04.2003. 8. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on 21/10/2016. Sd/- Sd/- [Justice (Retd.)Dev Darshan Sud] [J.Sudhakar Reddy] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 21 October, 2016 Rkk Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 4 M/s Agriculture Produce Market v. CIT, Shimla