The registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act shall take effect from the date of application.

1. Since identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals hence they are decided by this common judgment.

2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee.

3. This court while admitting the appeals framed following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Appeal No.32/2008

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has not acted illegally and perversely in making observations with regard to grant of exemption u/s 10(23C) (vi) when the ITAT has no jurisdiction to decide any application/appeal arising out of order passed either granting or rejecting exemption u/s 10(23C) (vi) of the Act by the Competent Authority.

2. Whether, without prejudice to the facts that the ITAT did not have jurisdiction to examine the merits of the case, whether it was justified in quashing the findings given by the AO holding that the same are perverse, contrary to facts and against the law, completely ignoring the specific findings that conditions set out in the provisos to Section 10(23C) have not been fulfilled.

(ii) Appeal No.29/2008

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has not acted illegally and perversely in directing the CIT to allow application of respondent u/s 12A(a) of the Act for registration for the purpose of the exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the ACT for the claimed assessment year?”

(iii) Appeal No.563/2009

“(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the respondent assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act?

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in making observations with regard to grant of exemption u/s 10(23C) (vi) when the ITAT has no jurisdiction to decide any application/appeal arising out of order passed either granting or rejecting exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the Competent Authority?”

(iv) Appeal No.406/2011

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that society is entitled for exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act.

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has not acted illegally and perversely in making observations with regard to grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) when the ITAT has no jurisdiction to decide any application/appeal arising out of order passed either granting or rejecting exemption u/s 10(23C) (vi) of the Act by the Competent Authority.”

For convenience of the Court appeal No.29/2008 is taken first.

4. In this appeal, counsel for the appellant has contended that registration was made on 30.5.2002 and rejected on 18.11.2005.

5. Mr. R.B. Mathur counsel for the appellant contended that tribunal has committed serious error while observing in para no.2.12 reads as under:-

“2.12 After having gone through the impugned order, we find that the Ld. CIT has denied the above plea of the assessee on the basis that the application dated 30.5.2002 was an invalid application and not meeting with mandatory requirement of Section 12A(a), hence the limitation of Section 12AA (2) is not applicable in respect of such invalid application. We do not agree with such findings of the Ld. CIT on the issue because in all the circumstances either due to defect in the application or on merits of it the Ld. CIT under sub clause (2) of Section 12AA is supposed to grant or refuse registration before 6 months from the end of months in which application was received and in the present case since the application was filed on 30.5.2012 the Ld. CIT should have disposed off the application on or before 30.11.2002. The Ld. CIT has however disposed the application on 18.11.2005 i.e. with the delay of around three years. In the case Sambandh Organization v. CIT (supra) relied upon by the Ld. A.R. the application u/s 12A for registration was filed on 2.8.2002 which was rejected by the Ld. Commissioner on 07.