- (1.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard both sides.
(2.) THE petitioner is a society running a school. The petitioner claims that because upto the asst. yr. 1998 -99, it was exempted under s. 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), therefore it did not seek separate registration under s. 12A of the Act, so as to claim exemption under s. 11. Sec. 10(22) being omitted by the Finance Act, 1998, the petitioner applied for registration under s. 12A of the Act, with application), the application was required to be made within one year from the date of creation of establishment of the trust or institution, therefore, condonation of delay was sought in terms of s. 12A(a) proviso (i).
(3.) SEC . 12AA(2) reads as follows : "12AA(2) Every order granting or refusing registration under cl. (b) of sub -s. (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was received under cl. (a) or cl. (aa) of sub -s. (1) of s. 12A." Admittedly, no decision was taken on the petitioner's application within the time of six months fixed by the aforesaid provision and in fact, even after a lapse of almost 5 years, no decision had been taken as per the counter affidavit. And for want of a decision by the CIT, the AO has continued to make block assessment of the petitioner under s. 158BD, raising huge tax demands in excess of rupees two crores.;