The main legal point established in the judgment is that registration under Section 12-A is a condition precedent for availing the benefit under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.

S.K.KULSHRESTHA, J.

( 1. ) These appeals have been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the various orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with regard to the direction to the Income Tax Authorities to grant registration to the Krishi Upaj Mandi under the provisions of Section 12-A and 12-AA of the Act. These appeals have been admitted on the following questions of law:-

1) " Whether ITA was justified in setting aside of the order passed by the Commissioner which has refused to grant registration to the assessee (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti) who had applied by them under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961 for registration as provided in Section 12A ibid.?

2) " Whether the respondent / assessee Mandi is entitled to claim registration under Section 12A of the Act, and if so, whether it satisfies requirement both on facts and at law for obtaining registration as provided under Section 12A and 12AA.of the said Act ?

3) "Whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal while reversing the order passed by the Commissioner and thereby allowing the application made by the respondent- assessee for obtaining registration under Section the aforesaid section namely 12A and 12AA is legally and factually sustainable?

4) " Whether Tribunal was justified in granting registration and that too retrospectively by allowing the application made by the respondent? "

( 2. ) Since the appeals raise common questions of law, they are being disposed of by this common order. However, for convenience the facts have been taken from the record of ITA No.217/2007 (CIT Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhanpura).

( 3. ) A consolidated order was passed by the ITAT on 23.12.2006 by which the order of the CIT was set-aside and allowing the appeals of the Krishi Upaj Mandis, it was directed that the Commissioner of Income Tax shall take necessary steps to grant registration to all the assessees from the date of their creation. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the ITAT, the Revenue has preferred these appeals which have been admitted on the questions hereinabove reproduced. While not disputing that the controversy has already been decided by this Court, by Gwalior Bench, in Miscellaneous Appeal (I.T.) No. 12/2007 and this Court has held that the market Committees will fulfill the requirements of Section 11 to get exemption and, therefore, they are entitled to registration under Section 12-A and 12-AA of the Act, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2008) 297 ITR 1 (SC) U.P. Forest Corporation and another Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Learned Counsel has pointed out, by reference to the said decision that in all such matters, a conjoint reading of Section 11,12 and 12-A of the Actmanifests that registration under Section 12-A is a condition precedent for availing the benefit under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. Reliance has " also been placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs Union of India and another 267 ITR 461 in which the Allahabad High Court has expressed the view that Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti are not one of the entities mentioned in Section 10 (20) of the Act and, therefore, they were not entitled to exemption under Section 10 (20) of the Act. Reference has also been made to the judgment of the Patna High Court in Bihar State Forest Development Corporation V. Commissioner of Income-Tax 224 ITR 757 holding that a State Forest Development Corporation is a Government Company and not entitled to registration under the provisions aforesaid. Attention has also been invited to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Self Employers Service Society Vs. CIT 247 ITR 18 regarding registration of the society under Section 12-AA of the Act.

( 4. ) At the outset, we may point out that in the decision of U.P. Forest Corporation and another, the Apex Court was considering the status of the Corporation vis-a-vis i