PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: This bunch of three appeals filed by assessee are against separate orders of CIT(A), Pune-10, Pune, all dated 22.02.2016 relating to assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 against respective orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the).

2. All the three appeals relating to the same assessee for different assessment years on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to ITA Nos.987 to 989/PUN/2016 Mount Carmel Society 2 adjudicate the issues, we are making reference to the facts and issues in ITA No.987/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2009-10.

3. The assessee in ITA No.987/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2009-10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee trust was not entitled to claim exemption u/s 11 since it was not registered u/s 12A of the. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A w.e.f A.Y. 2015 - 16 and therefore, no exemption u/s 11 could be allowed to the assessee for this year. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee trust was granted approval u/s 80G and even in the earlier years, the exemption u/s 11 was allowed to the assessee and therefore, simply because the assessee trust was not able to produce the registration certificate u/s 12A, there was no reason to deny the exemption u/s 11. 4] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that considering the facts of the case, the assessee trust ought to have been deemed to have been granted registration u/s 12A and therefore, the exemption u/s 11 should have been allowed to the assessee. 5] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee trust was not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) on the ground that it was not substantially financed by the Govt. 6] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee trust was substantially financed by the Govt. and therefore, exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) should have been allowed.

4. The assessee besides original grounds of appeal, has also raised an additional ground of appeal which, according to him goes to the root of the issue and needs to be adjudicated first. The additional ground of appeal reads as under:-

1] The assessee submits that it has been granted registration u/s 12AA of the vide order dated 18.08.2015 and therefore, the benefit of exemption u/s 11 should be granted to it for the year under consideration in view of the proviso inserted to sub-section (2) of section 12A of the.

ITA Nos.987 to 989/PUN/2016 Mount Carmel Society 3

5. The issue raised vide additional ground of appeal is legal issue and does not require any investigation into the facts and hence, we admit the same and proceed to address the said issue first.

6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was charitable trust and had for the year under consideration furnished return of income within stipulated time declaring nil income. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of theto the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted that original return of income filed by the trust, may be treated as return filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the. Thereafter, case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee trust was not registered under the Income Tax Act after omission of section 10(22) of thew.e.f. 01.04.1999. The assessee was asked to furnish copy of certificate of registration under section 12A or 10(23) of the, as the case may be. However, the assessee did not furnish either of the said certificates and the Assessing Officer was of the view that income of trust was not covered under the benefits of sections 11, 12 and 10(23C) of the Act, as the case may be. He then, proceeded to compute income in the hands of assessee. Vide additional ground of appeal, the assessee has pointed out that it has been granted registration under section 12AA of thevide order dated 18.08.2015 and hence, it should be allowed the benefit of exemption under section 11 of thefor the year under consideration, in view of the proviso inserted to sub-section (2) of section 12A of the.

7. Before proceeding further, it may be pointed out that the order of CIT(A) is dated 22.02.2016 and he took note of the fact that the assessee had furnished an application before Commissioner (Exemption), Pune and vide ITA Nos.987 to 989/PUN/2016 Mount Carmel Society 4 order dated 18.08.2015, the assessee trust was granted registration from assessment year 2015-16. However, the year under appeal being financial year 2008-09, the status granted to the assessee as charitable trust would not apply for the year under consideration, since the same was effective from financial year 2014-15. The assessee also pointed out that the Commissioner had issued 80G certificate during earlier years regularly including the year under consideration and such action of the Department proves that the assessee was charitable trust even prior to assessment year 2015-16. However, the CIT(A) did not accept the said plea of assessee on the ground that the Commissioner (Exemption), Pune had taken into consideration this aspect also and had accordingly decided the issue. Since the assessee was not registered as charitable trust under section 12A of theduring the year, the CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer in denying exemption claimed under section 11 of the.

8. With regard to second claim under section 10(23C) of the Act, the CIT(A) held that receipts exceeded the limit prescribed in the said section, hence the assessee was not entitled to the said exemption.

9. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us pointed out that once the registration has been granted under section 12A of thew.e.f. 18.08.2015, copy of which is placed at pages 43 and 44 of Paper Book, then the assessee is entitled to the aforesaid exemption claimed under sections 11 and 12 of thein respect of proceedings pending before the Authorities. In this regard, reliance was placed on decisions of Pune Bench of Tribunal i.e. in the case of Carmel Havel Vs. ITO in ITA No.1822/PN/2014, relating to assessment year 2011-12, order dated 26.08.2016 and in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Shri Vishwakalyan Jivraksha Pratishthan in ITA ITA Nos.987 to 989/PUN/2016 Mount Carmel Society 5 No.2013/PN/2014 along with CO No.18/PN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12, order dated 22.07.2016 and also on various other decisions of different Benches of Tribunal.

10. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of authorities below.

11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against claim of exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act, where an application for registration under section 12A of thehas been granted by the Commissioner on a later date. In the facts of the case, assessment proceedings were initiated under section 148 of theon the ground that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under sections 11 and 12 of thein the absence of any registration under section 12A or 10(23C) of the. The issue which is raised before us by way of additional ground of appeal is that the benefit of exemption under section 11 of theshould be granted to the assessee, in view of proviso inserted to section 12A(2) of theonce the order granting registration under section 12AA of thehas been passed by the Commissioner on 18.08.2015.

12. The proviso under section 12A(2) of thehas been inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.10.2014. The said proviso lays down that where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA of the Act, then the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of theshall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration and the objects and activities of such trust or institution ITA Nos.987 to 989/PUN/2016 Mount Carmel Society 6 remain the same for such preceding assessment year. The assessment proceedings in the case were initiated by way of notice under section 148 of the Act, issued on 14.03.2014. The assessment order has been passed on

14.10.2014. The CIT(A)s order has been passed on 22.02.2016.

13. The case of assessee before us is that proceedings before the CIT(A) are continuation of assessment proceedings, hence, it cannot be said that assessment proceedings were not pending on the date when registration under section 12AA of thewas granted i.e. 18.08.2015. We have already referred to observations of CIT(A) in this regard, who has dismissed the plea of assessee.

14. Similar issue arose before the Tribunal in Carmel Haven Vs. ITO (supra), wherein vide order dated 26.08.2016, the proviso to section 12A(2) of thewas interpreted and it was held that in case assessment proceedings were pending and the assessee had been granted registration under section 12A of the Act, then provisions of sections 11 and 12 of thewould apply to such income derived from any property under the trust. The relevant findings are in paras 11 to 15 of the said order. In the facts of the case before Pune Bench of Tribunal in Carmel Haven Vs. ITO (supra), assessment proceedings were pending and hence, the issue was decided in line with the proviso inserted under section 12A(2) of the.

15. Further, the Tribunal in ITO Vs. Shri Vishwakalyan Jivraksha Pratishthan (supra) vide order dated 22.07.2016 also, on similar facts wherein the application for registration was made on 16.01.2013 and registration was granted by the Commissioner on 25.03.2014, however notice under section 148 of thewas issued to the assessee on 22.03.2013. The Tribunal in such ITA Nos.987 to 989/PUN/2016 Mount Carmel Society 7 circumstances, held that the provisions of amended sub-section (2) of section 12A of thewere retrospective in nature, coupled with the fact that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under section 12AA of theand hence, the assessee was held to be entitled to claim exemption under section 12A of the.

16. The Honble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) held that where the matter was pending before the Tribunal by way of appeal, then assessment proceedings are pending. The Honble High Court brushed aside the contention of Revenue that assessment proceedings come to an end when the assessment order is framed. The contention on behalf of Revenue to equate assessment order with assessment proceedings was held to be based on a fallacious premise. The Honble High Court laid down that The proceedings before the Tribunal are meant to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. If this be so, it follows that the assessment proceeding cannot be said to be complete and is pending till the appeal is heard and disposed of by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal is given effect to by the assessing authority by computing the correct tax liability of an assessee. In the facts of the case before the Honble High Court, the Tribunal had entertained new ground raised by the assessee, wherein it claimed the benefit under section 11(2) of theand adjudicated tax liability of the assessee. The Honble High Court held that in these circumstances, the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to entertain new ground and further held that where an assessee is required to pay tax or becomes entitled to refund, would be ascertained by the assessing authority after giving effect to the order of Tribunal. ITA Nos.987 to 989/PUN/2016 Mount Carmel Society 8

17. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, the assessee was granted registration on 18.08.2015 i.e. the date on which appellate proceedings were pending before the CIT(A). In number of judicial precedents, it has been held that the proceedings before the CIT(A) are continuation of assessment proceedings and once the assessee has been granted registration, then the conditions prescribed in the proviso to section 12A(2) of theneed to be applied and the assessee in such circumstances, is entitled to the exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the. Accordingly, we hold so. In such facts and circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the aforesaid benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12 of theto the assessee in the present case and determine the tax liability accordingly.

18. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had relied on the ratio laid down by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Bulandshahr Development Authority Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.2686/Del/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12, order dated 04.12.2017. In the facts of the said case, it has been noted by the Tribunal that the assessee had not filed any certificate of registration granted under section 12AA of theand hence, the request of assessee for grant of exemption under sections 11 to 13 of the was rejected. The facts of said case are at variance to the facts before us. In the facts of the case before us, the assessee has received 12A registration certificate, which is dated 18.08.2015. The CIT(A) has acknowledged the same and copy of the said certificate is also available before us. In such circumstances, the ratio laid down by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Bulandshahr Development Authority Vs. Addl. CIT (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we reverse the order of CIT(A) in this regard and direct the Assessing Officer to allow exemption under sections ITA Nos.987 to 989/PUN/2016 Mount Carmel Society 9 11 and 12 of the, in view of proviso to section 12A(2) of the. Thus, the additional ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed and the original grounds of appeal become academic.

19. The facts and issues in ITA Nos.988/PUN/2016 & 989/PUN/2016 are identical to the facts and issues in ITA No.987/PUN/2016 and our decision in ITA No.987/PUN/2016 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos.988/PUN/2016 & 989/PUN/2016.

20. In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on this 29 th day of March, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / Pune; Dated : 29 th March, 2019. GCVSR /Copy of the Order is forwarded to :

1. / The Appellant;

2. / The Respondent;

3. () / The CIT(A), Pune-10, Pune;

4. The CIT(Exemptions), Pune; 5. 6. , , / DR A , ITAT, Pune; / Guard file. / BY ORDER, //True Copy// / Sr. Private Secretary , / ITAT, Pune