IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.172 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.8.2010 The Commissioner Income Tax-III -----Appellant. Vs. Shree Durga Mata Mandir Trust (Regd.) -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 28.5.2009 in I.T.A. No.1026/CHD/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble ITAT is right in law condoning the delay for filing the application for registration under section 12A of the I.T.Act in view of the factual findings of the CIT to this effect that there is nothing to show that the applicant trust was prevented from making the application before the expiry date for sufficient reasons. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in condoning the delay 24½ years in submission of application for registration u/s 12A of I.T.Act by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampath Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (118 ITR 326) (SC) which is distinguishable on facts.” I.T.A. No.172 of 2010 2. The assessee is a charitable trust which was created on 15.11.1983 as per trust deed registered with the Sub Registrar, Ludhiana. It applied for registration under Section 12AA of the Act on 30.5.2007. The Commissioner rejected the prayer for condonation of delay and granted registration w.e.f. 1.4.2007 i.e. the year in which the application was made. On appeal, the Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessee for registration from the date of its creation. 3. When the matter came up for hearing earlier, we asked learned counsel for the revenue to ascertain if there was any tax liability of the assessee in the earlier years and whether any demand was pending. After taking instructions, he states that no demand was outstanding against the assessee. In these circumstances, the questions raised are academic, as no tax benefit is taken by the assessee by registration from an earlier date. 4. In view of above, the questions raised cannot be held to be substantial questions of law. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 06, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2