M/s Punjab Heritage & Tourism Promotion Board, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1095/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63880 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJEET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: A K JINDAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 154; 11; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BEN CH B BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, V.P. AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, AM ITA NO. 257, 258, 1094 & 1095/CHD/2011 A.YS 2007-08, 2008-09 M/S PUNJAB HERITAGE AND V I.T.O. TOURISM PROMOTION WARD 4(3) BOARD CHANDIGARH PLOT NO. 3, SECTOR 38-A CHANDIGARH AAATP 6562 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K. JINDAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MANJEET SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 07.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.08.2012 ORDER PER BENCH ITA NO. 257/CHD/2011 THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2008/2.7.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CI T-II U/S 250(6) OF THE ACT ((IN SHORT THE ACT). 2 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT IN F NO. CIT-II/CHG/TECH/2008-09/13 61 DATED 2.7.2008 HAS ERRED IN PASSING THAT ORDER IN CONTRAV ENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 TO THE EXTENT OF ALLOWING REGISTRATION W.E.F A.Y 2009-10 I NSTEAD OF A.Y 2007-08. 2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW, LD. CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GR ANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT BOARD W.E.F. A .Y 2009-10 INSTEAD OF A.Y 2007-08. 3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW, LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN G RANTING REGISTRATION W.E.F. A.Y 2009-10 THOUGH NO ORDER REF USING 2 REGISTRATION WAS PASSED ON APPLICATION DATED 18.12. 2006 TILL LIMITATION DATE OF 30.6.2007. THE LD. CIT HAS ERRE D IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH CONTINUED BEYON D PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS ALLOW DEEMED REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. ITA NO. 258/CHD/2011 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2009 PASSED BY LD. CIT IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW, THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION BY L D. CIT IN HIS ORIGINAL ORDER W.E.F A.Y 2009-10 INSTEAD OF A.Y 200 7-08 IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE RESPONDENT HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW, LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOW ING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT, MOVED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE APPELLANT REQUESTED FOR AMENDMENT OF ORIGINAL O RDER FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. A.Y 2007-08 AS AGAINST ORIGI NALLY GRANTED W.E.F. A.Y 2009-10. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW, LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT ISSUI NG ANY SHOW CAUSE FOR REJECTION OF APPLICATION OF APPELLANT MOV ED U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND THEREBY PASSING AN ORDER WITHOUT ALLOWI NG THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND THIS ACTIO N IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW, LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT TREAT ING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FILED ON 1.12.2009 U/S 154 OF THE ACT, AS ALLOWED AS NO ORDER ON THAT APPLICATION WAS SERV ED ON THE APPELLANT TILL 30.6.2010 AND HENCE THE APPLICATION HAS TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED ALLOWED. 4. ITA NO. 1094/CHD/2011 FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF R S. 1,54,47,570.00 ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FDR AND D ISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON 400 TH YEAR MARTYRDOM WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST EARNED ON FDR TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,49,01,5 70.00. THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 18.12.2006 THE ORDER FOR GRANTING/REFUSING REGISTRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED ON/BEFORE 30.6.2007. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ORDERS PASSED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME, THE APPELLANT WI LL BE DEEMED TO BE REGISTERED U/S 12AA WITH EFFECT FROM A.Y 2007-08 AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND THE INTEREST WAS NOT TAXABLE. 3. THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWA NCE OF 400 TH YEAR MARTYRDOM EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,46,000 .00 IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5 ITA NO. 1095/CHD/2011 FOR THE A.Y 2008-09 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF R S. 4,62,40,874.00 ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FDR AND S AVING BANK ACCOUNT INTEREST WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UN JUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST EARNED ON FDR/SAVING BANK ACCOUNT INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,62,40,874.00. THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED F OR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ON 18.12.2006, THE ORDER FOR GRANTING/REFU SING REGISTRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED ON/BEFORE 30.6 .2007. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ORDERS PASSED WITHIN THE ST IPULATED TIME, THE APPELLANT WILL BE DEEMED TO BE REGISTERED U/S 1 2AA WITH EFFECT FROM A.Y 2007-08 AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMP TION U/S 11 DURING THE A.Y 2008-09 AND THE INTEREST WAS NOT TAX ABLE. 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 14.3.201 1 U/S 253(5) OF THE ACT, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.7.2008 OF THE LD. CIT. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE BENCH, ON 15.3.2011, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.7.20 08, WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT, ON 7.7.2008. THERE IS A D ELAY OF 921 DAYS, AS MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE ASSESSEE STATED IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE AP PEAL IN TIME AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 253(3) OF THE ACT. 4 7. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE NARRATED THE BRIEF FACTUAL HISTORY OF THE CASE AND STATED THAT THE DELAY OF 921 DAYS OCCU RRED AS THE APPELLANT COULD NOT IMMEDIATELY UNDERSTOOD THE PERI OD OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION U//S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FO R THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT SUCH NON-UNDERSTANDING CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT CAUSE U/S 253(5) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT, WAS FILED, BEFORE THE LD. CIT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED THAT RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 30 .11.2009, PERTAINS TO THE ISSUE OF GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT W.E.F. A.Y 2009- 10 AND NOT FROM A.Y 2007-08. THE SAID RECTIFICATIO N APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT VIDE ORDER DATED 4.12.2009. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN THE S AID APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOL LOWING DECISIONS: 1 SURESH SHET V. ACIT, 6 ITR (TRIB) 30 (BANG) 2 DR. (MRS) SUDHA S. TRIVEDI V. ITO, 125 TTJ (MUM) 42 3 SUBHASH MALIK V. CIT, 325 ITR 243 4 PEOPLE EDUCATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (PEEDS) V. ITO, 100 ITD 87 (CHENNAI)(TM) 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE VE HEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF INORDINATE DELAY, IN FILING THE APPE AL AFTER A DELAY OF 921 DAYS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT HAS PA SSED VALID ORDER U/S12AA OF THE ACT, IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RELEVAN T PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HE PLEADED THAT DEL AY OF 921 DAYS, IN FILING THE APPEAL IS PURELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NEG LIGENCE, COMPLETE INACTION AND INDIFFERENT ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE, TO PURSUE THE REMEDY FOR AN APPEAL UNDER THE ACT. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH INORDINATE DELAY OF 921 DAYS IN FILING AN APPEAL DESERVES TO B E DISMISSED IN VIEW OF TIME LATCHES AND NOT-EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT C AUSE. 5 9 WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SAID APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. WE DEEM IT FIT TO REPRO DUCE THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID APPLICATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APP RECIATION OF THE EXISTENCE OR OTHERWISE THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR SUC H A DELAY. SUB: APPLICATION U/S 253(5) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 PRAYING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB HERITAGE AND TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD V. CIT-II IN ITA NO,. 2 57/CHD/2011 HON'BLE BENCH, THE APPELLANT CITED AS SUBJECT ABOVE HAS FILED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH ON 15.3.2011 . THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.7.2008 OF THE RESPONDENT SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 7.7.2008 . THERE IS DELAY OF 921 DAYS IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. HOWEVER, ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND SITUATION, THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE AP PEAL IN TIME AND THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPLICATION/PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED U/S 253(5) OF THE ACT. FACTS OF THE CASE 1. THE APPELLANT IS BOARD CREATED AS A TRUST BY STA TE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB. 2 THE APPELLANT APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA O F THE ACT VIDE APPLICATION FILED WITH RESPONDENT ON 18.12.2006. T HE RESPONDENT ISSUED A LETTER DATED 22.6.2007 THROUGH WHICH IT OBJECTED TO THE DISSOLUTION CLAUSE IN THE TRUST DEED OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, NO ORDER GRANTING OR REFUSING REGISTRATION WAS PASSED TILL 30.6.2007. THE PROCEE DINGS WERE CONTINUED EVEN THEREAFTER AND THE APPELLANT DULY PARTICIPATED AND COOPERATED IN THE CONTINUED PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF THESE CONTINUED PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT FILED DRAFT AMENDED DISSOLUTION CLAUS E, THEREAFTER FINAL AMENDED DISSOLUTION CLAUSE, FOLLOWED BY AMENDED TRU ST DEED AND THEREAFTER NOTIFIED DEED. AFTER THIS THE RESPONDENT DIRECTED THE APPELLANT TO FILE AMENDED TRUST DEED ALONG WITH FORM NO. 10A. THIS W AS DULY DONE BY THE APPELLANT. 3. FINALLY VIDE ORDER DATED 2.7.2008, REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED. BUT THE SAME WAS GRANTED W.E.F. A.Y 2009-10. 4. SINCE THE REGISTRATION HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT IMMEDIATELY UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATE THE ISSUE OF DIFFERENCE OF YEAR OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. A.Y 2009-10 AS AGAINST ALLOWABLE W.E.F. A.Y 2007-08. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLAN T FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ALLO WED AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT MAY BE ADMITTED. FOR THIS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ADVISED BY PROFESSIONALS THAT THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. A.Y 2009-10 INSTEAD OF A.Y 2007 -08 IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD RECTIFIABLE U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND APPL ICATION THEREON WAS ALSO FILED ON 1.12.2009. HOWEVER ORDER ON THAT APPLICAT ION WAS SERVED ONLY ON 6 7.2.2011. THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE A PPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF SERVICE OF ORDER U/S 154. THIS WAS SUFFICIENT CAUS E FOR NOT PRESENTING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN TIME. 2 THAT ON THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSITI ON OF THE CASE, THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR CONDONATION OF DEL AY IN FILING OF APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. IT IS THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ABOVE MENTIONED PRAYER OF THE APPELLANT TOWARDS CONDONATI ON OF DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL AND THEREBY ADMITTANCE OF APPEAL BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT BE ALLOWED. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, FOR PUNJAB HERITAGE & TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD 10 (I) A BARE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE REVE ALS THAT THE APPELLANT APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE A CT, IN FORM NO. 10A, DATED 18.12.2006. THE LD. CIT ISSUED A LETTER DART ED 22.6.2007 TO THE TRUSTEE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATI ON U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID LETTER ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - REGARDING PLEASE REFER TO YOUR APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U /S 12A(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FILED WITH OFFICE ON 18.12.2006. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE DEED OF DECLARATION OF THE BOAR D REVEALS THAT CLAUSE 26 DEALING WITH THE DISSOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION O F SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, YOUR APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 1 2AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FAVO URABLY. IT CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED ON AMENDMENT OF THIS CLAUSE AND RECEI PT OF AMENDED RULES AND REGULATIONS. (II) THE LD. CIT CATEGORICALLY POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT THAT A PERUSAL OF THE DEED OF DECLARATION OF THE BOARD REVEALS THAT CLAUSE 26 DEALING WITH THE DISSOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION FOR REG ISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY. IT CAN BE CO NSIDERED ON AMENDMENT OF THIS CLAUSE AND RECEIPT OF AMENDMENT O F RULES AND REGULATIONS. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD. CIT HAS BROUGHT TO THE 7 NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT, THE FATE OF APPLICATION MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 12A OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS SPECIFIC COMMU NICATION EMANATING FROM THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(A), ADDRESSED TO THE APP ELLANT ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID APPLICATION, ON SUBMISSIONS OF THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH CLEAR INDICATION BY THE LD. CIT THAT SUCH APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY, IS AN ELOQUENT MANIFESTATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT OF THE L D. CIT. THEREFORE, CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO ORDER GRANTING OR REFUSING REGISTRATION WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT TILL 30.6.20 07, IS NOT WHOLLY REFLECTING TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS, IN THE LIGHT OF S PECIFIC COMMUNICATION DATED 22.6.2007 ADDRESSED TO THE TRUSTEE BY THE LD. CIT. THE APPELLANT PARTICIPATED AND COOPERATED IN THE SUBSEQ UENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT FILED A LETTER DATED 1.1.2008 RECEIVE D IN THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT DATED 3.1.2008 ENCLOSING A COPY OF THE MINU TES OF THE MEETING OF THE APPELLANT AS IN EVIDENT FROM LETTER AT PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 19.3.2008, FILED AM ENDED COY OF BYE- LAWS AS IS EVIDENT FROM LETTER AT PAGE 4 OF THE PA PER BOOK. FURTHER, IN CONTINUATION OF LETTER DATED 19.3.2008 THE APPELLAN T FILED NOTIFIED COPY OF BYE-LAWS OF PHTB, AS IS EVIDENT FROM LETTER ADDR ESSED TO THE LD. CIT AS PER PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE APPELLANT FI LED ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A(A) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. SIR, THIS IS WITH REFERENCE TO LETTER NO. CIT/CHD-II/TE CH/12A/194/1298 DATED 22.6.2007 REGARDING THE SUBJECT CITED. VIDE THIS LETTER, THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED WAS REG ARDING THE DISSOLUTION CLAUSE IN THE BYE-LAWS OF THE TRUST. MEETINGS WERE HELD BY OUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES WITH YOU AND NECESSARY AMENDMENTS W ERE CARRIED OUT IN THE 8 DISSOLUTION CLAUSE, AS DESIRED BY YOU. AFTER AMENDM ENTS, A DRAFT COPY WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO YOU. AMENDED DRAFT COPY DULY SIGNED AND APPROVED FROM T HE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TOURISM VIDE MEMO. NO.10/17/27-TA/738 HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM. THIS COPY HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO YOUR OFFICE. AS THE ONLY OBJECTION RA ISED ALREADY STAND BEEN REMOVED, IT IS REQUESTED THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12A BE GRANTED TO US. IN CASE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS REQUIRED AT OUR END, YOU MAY WRITE TO US AND WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVI DE THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. (III) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 253(5) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL OR PERMIT THE FILING OF A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS AFTE R THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (4), IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. 11 IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS PERTINENT TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE APPEARING IN SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. THE PROPOSITION IN THE MATTER IS WELL SETTLED. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUDHIR KUMA R ANAND V. DR.VIJAY KUMAR ANAND AND OTHERS AIR 2012 DELHI 97 H AS HELD AS UNDER: LIMITATION ACT (36 OF 1963) S.5 CONDONATION OF D ELAY SUFFICIENT CAUSE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITIO N AND POSSESSION FILED RELYING UPON PROBATE CASE FILED EARLIER AFTE R DISMISSAL OF PROBATE CASE FOR NON PROSECUTION, PLAINTIFF LOST IN TEREST IN MATTER NO VALID EXPLANATION GIVES AS TO WHY NO STEPS WERE TAKEN FOR ITS RESTORATION MERE STATEMENT THAT RELEVANT FILE WAS LOST IN SOME OFFICE OR SOME CONFUSION ABOUT ADVOCATES APPEARING IN MATTER, CAN NOT BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE DELAY NOT C ONDONED. 12 (I) THE WORDS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT MAKING THE APPLICATION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION NO DOUBT IS TO BE A PPLIED IN A REASONABLE MANNER BUT DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF EACH CASE. PARTY HAS TO GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. UNLESS SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS EXPLAINED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, PRAYER MAY NOT BE GRANTED. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE COURT MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTY AND ITS BONA FIDE. THE COURT HAS TO SEE WHET HER SUBSTANTIAL 9 JUSTICE WOULD BE DONE BY CONDONING THE DELAY. IT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT ON EXPIRTY OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITAT ION PRESCRIBED FOR SEEKING LEGAL REMEDY RIGHTS ACCRUE IN FAVOUR OF OTHER SIDE. (II) SIMILARLY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN CASE OF BALWINDER SINGH V. JAGDISH SINGH & OTHERS, V (2010) SLT 790: (AIR 2010 S.C 3043) HELD AS UNDER WE MAY STATE THAT EVEN IF THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE' H AS TO RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION, IT MUST SQUARELY FALL WITHIN THE CONC EPT OF REASONABLE TIME AND PROPER CONDUCT OF THE CONCERNED PARTY. THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION NORMALLY IS TO INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT O F 'REASONABLENESS' AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD IN ITS GENERAL CONNOTATION. THE LAW OF L IMITATION IS A SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND HAS DEFINITE CONSEQUENCES ON THE RIGHT AND OBLI GATION OF A PARTY TO ARISE. THESE PRINCIPLES 'SHOULD BE ADHERED TO AN D APPLIED APPROPRIATELY DEPENDING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A GIVEN CASE, ONCE A VALUABLE RIGHT, AS ACCRUED IN FAVOUR OF ONE PARTY AS A RESUL T OF THE FAILURE OF THE OTHER PARTY TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY BY SHOWING SUFFICIENT CA USE _AND ITS OWN CONDUCT, IT WILL BE UNREASONABLE TO, TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT ON TH E MERE ASKING OF THE APPLICANT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE DELAY IS DIRECTLY A RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE, DEFAULT OR INACTION OF THAT PARTY. JUSTICE MUST BE DONE TO BOTH PARTIES EQUALLY. THEN ALONE THE END OF JUSTICE CAN BE ACHIEVED. IF A PARTY HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY NEGLIGENT IN IMPLEMENTING ITS RIGHTS AND REMEDIES, IT WILL BE EQ UALLY UNFAIR TO DEPRIVE THE OTHER PARTY OF A VALUABLE RIGHT THAT HAS ACCRUED TO IT IN LAW AS A RESULT OF HIS ACTING VIGILANTLY. THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APP LICANTS LACK IN DETAILS. EVEN THE AVERMENTS MADE ARE NOT CORRECT AND EX FACIE LACK BO NA FIDE. THE EXPLANATION HAS TO BE REASONABLE OR PLAUSIBLE, SO AS TO PERSUAD E THE COURT TO BELIEVE THAT THE EXPLANATION RENDERED IS NOT ONLY T RUE, BUT IS WORTHY OF EXERCISING JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF THE APP LICANT. IF IT DOES NOT SPECIFY ANY OF THE ENUNCIATED INGREDIENTS OF JUDICIAL PRONO UNCE THEN THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE APPL ICATION IS BONA FIDE AND BASED UPON TRUE AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS, AS WELL AS REFLECT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR OF A COMMON PRUDENT, PERSON ON THE PART O F THE APPLICANT, THE COURT WOULD NORMALLY TILT THE JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN FAVO UR OF SUCH AN APPLICANT. (III) IN THE CASE OF RAMLAL AND OTHERS V. REWA COALFIELDS LTD., [AIR1962 SC 361] THIS COURT TOOK THE VIEW: '7. IN CONSTRUING SECTION 5 IT IS RELEVANT TO BEAR IN MIND TWO IMPORTANT_CONSIDERATIONS. THE FIRST CONSIDERATION I S THAT THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED FOR MAKING AN APPEA L_GIVES RISE TO A RIGHT IN FAVOUR OF THE DECREE HOLDER TO TREAT THE DE CREE_AS BINDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESC RIBED HAS EXPIRED THE DECREE-HOLDER HAS OBTAINED A BENEFIT UNDER THE LAW OF LIMITATION TO TREAT THE DECREE_AS_BEYOND CHALLENGE, AND THIS LEGAL RIGHT WH ICH HAS ACCRUED TO THE DECREE HOLDER BY LAPSE OF TIME SHOULD NOT BE LIGHT HEARTEDLY DISTURBED. THE OTHER CONSIDERATION WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED IS THAT IF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR EXCUSING DELAY IS SHOWN DISCRETION IS GIVEN TO THE COURT TO CONDONE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. THIS DISCRETION HAS BEE N DELIBERATELY CONFERRED ON THE COURT IN ORDER THAT JUDICIAL POWER AND DISCRETI ON IN THAT BEHALF SHOULD BE EXERCISED TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. AS HAS BE EN OBSERVED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN KRISHNA V. CHATHAPPAN, ILR 13 MAD 269. IT IS HOWEVER, NECESSARY TO EMPHASIZE THAT EVEN AFTER SUFFICIENT C AUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN A PARTY IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CONDO NATION OF DELAY IN QUESTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. THE PROOF OF A SUFFICIENT 10 CAUSE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE COURT BY S ECTION 5. IF SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS NOT PROVED NOTHING FURTHER HAS TO BE DONE; THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONING DELAY HAS TO BE DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND ALONE. IF SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS SHOWN THEN THE COURT HAS TO ENQUIRE WHETHER IN ITS DISCRETION IT SHOULD CONDONE THE DELAY. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER NATUR ALLY INTRODUCES THE CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND IT IS AT TH IS STAGE THAT DILIGENCE OF THE PARTY OR ITS BONA FIDES MAY FALL FOR CONSIDERATION. (IV) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE JUDGMENT UNI ON OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. NRIPEN SARMA REPORTED IN AIR 2011 S.C 1237 HELD WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE PETITION. THE DELAY OCCURRED BECAUSE OF THE RESPONDENTS TOOK THEIR OWN SWEET TIME TO REACH THE CONCLUSION WHETHER THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE APPEALED OR NOT. IT IS NOT THAT THEY WERE PREVENTED BY ANY REASON WHICH IS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL TO TAKE SUCH A DECISION IN TIM E. EVEN OTHERWISE, ON MERITS OF THE CASE ALSO IT DOES NOT A PPEAR TO HAVE ANY TENABLE GROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERITS IN THIS PETITION. 13. THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE . (I) IN SURESH SHET V, ACIT (SUPRA) IN THIS CASE D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS CONDONED ON SPECIFIC FACTS. THE DELAY O N ACCOUNT OF HIGH HOPES OF THE ASSESSEE IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS RESULTED IN DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSEE TO FILE APPEAL WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF WILFUL OMISSION OR COMMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED BY THE FORCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO KEEP AWAY FROM REGULAR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH HAS CAUSED AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN T HIS CASE WHILE MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 1997-98, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GRANTED DEDUCTION BY WAY OF E XPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 18,36,602/-. THUS THE NET AMOUNT OF ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 WAS RS. 27,54,903/-. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,91,505/- FOR THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAVOURABLY ACTED UPON T HE RECTIFICATION 11 PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXCLUDED THE AMO UNT OF RS. 27,53,903/- FROM THE ASSESSABLE INCOME FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1997-98. IN THE SAME SCENARIO THE ASSESSEE HAS FUR THER MOVED A RECTIFICATION PETITION BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORI TY IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 TO GIVE DEDUCTION BY WAY OR EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 18,36,602/- WHICH WA S GRANTED IN THE ORIGINAL EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT. THIS RECTIFICATION A PPLICATION WAS DISMISSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ORDER OF RECTIFICATION WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE MATTER WAS TAKEN TO THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL. MEANWHILE THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING ITSELF. THE SAID QUANTUM APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE TRIBUNAL CONDONED THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEAL AS THE ASSESSEE HAD HIGH HOPES OF SUCCESS IN THE PETITION FILED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE FACT SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CLE ARLY DIFFERENT AND DISTINGUISHABLE AS IN THE PRESENT CASE EVEN THE APP LICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 WAS FILED BY THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2009 AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 12AA OF THE ACT PASSED ON 30.6.2008/2 .7.2008 CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN 60 DAYS TIME HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED FOR FILING OF APPEAL FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE IN APPEALED AGAINST. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 154 REVEALS THAT TH ERE WAS HARDLY ANY HOPE IN SUCCESS IN THE MATTER. THE LD. CIT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, A.Y 2009-10, IN TERMS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: WHERE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF JUNE 2007 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH PERSON OR INSTITUTION FROM ASSES SMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS 12 MADE. THE PROVISIONS WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 W.E.F. 1.6.2007. THE ASSESSEE MADE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ON 18.12.200 6 WHICH WAS FURTHER SUBSTITUTED BY ANOTHER APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10 DATED 15.4.2008, AS IS EVIDENT FROM RELEVANT RECORD IN TH E CASE. IN VIEW OF SUCH A FACT SITUATION, THE APPELLANT CONSTRUED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE, TO ITS CASE, AS THE APPLICATION WAS FILED ORIGINALLY FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A ON 18.12. 2006. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT IN TER MS IF NEW APPLICATION FILED FOR REGISTRATION, ON 15.4.2008. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT REASONABLY ENTERT AIN HIGH HOPE OF SUCCEEDING IN RECTIFICATORY PROCEEDINGS. HAVING RE GARD TO THE FACT SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE CLEARLY SA ID THAT THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICATION TO THE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE. (II) DR. (MRS) SUDHA S. TRIVEDI V. ITO (SUPRA) WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE RELIED UP ON AND FOUND THAT THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENT FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT FOR FILING TH E APPEAL WAS ALLOWED, IN VIEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE, AS TH E APPELLANT WAS ADVISED BY HER COUNSEL TO FILE RECTIFICATION APPLIC ATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT RELIEF WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. THE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE IS DIFFERENT AND DIS TINGUISHABLE AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. THEREFORE, THE DECISION CITED AND RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT APPLI CABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVI DENCE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS WRONGLY ADVISED BY THE COUNSEL. 13 (III) SUBHASH MALIK V. CIT (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE P LACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH MALIK V. CIT (S UPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXERCISED DUE DILIGENC E AND WAS NOT LETHARGIC IN FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 25.9.2002. RECORD OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKE N THE MATTER WITH THIS COUNSEL AND THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN FOR RECTIFIC ATION OF CIT(A)S ORDER ON HIS ADVICE TOOK A LONG TIME WHICH RESULTED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IT IS UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE DEL AY WAS CONDONED. THE FACT SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND DISTINGUISHABLE AND, HENCE, THE CASE RELIED UPON IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON PROVES THE FACTUM THAT THE APPELLANT EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE AND ACTED PROMPTLY. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS ARE AS UNDER: I LD. CIT(A) ORDER DATED 25 SEPT 2002 RECEIVED ON 1 8.11.2002 II PETITION U/S 154 FILED IN OFFICE OF LD. CIT(A) O N 23..12.2002 III PETITION FIXED FOR HEARING, REPRESENTED AND HEA RD BY LD. CIT(A) ON 17.1.2003 IV AFTER CONCLUDING THE HEARING THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DELIVER THE JUDGMENT, AFTER PURSUING THE MATTER WAS REFIXED ON 26.9.2003 V LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE MATTER U/S 154 WHICH WAS H EARD ON 17 TH JAN., 2003 BY ORDER DATED 20.10.2003 VI APPELLATE ORDER SERVED ON 25.11.2003 VII 2 ND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL FILED ON 28.11.2003 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CASE CITED BY THE APPELLA NT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. (IV) THE APPELLANT FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE IN THE C ASE OF PEOPLE EDUCATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (PEEDS) V. ITO (SUPRA). THE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERE NT AND DISTINGUISHABLE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE DECISION R ELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE. 14 14. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND AVAILABLE RECORDS THE FOLLOWING DETAILS, IN THE MATTER, ARE AS UNDER: I ORDER U/S 12AA OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. CIT 3 0.6.2008 /2.7.2008 II APPEAL AGAINST ABOVE ORDER WAS FILED BY THE APPE LLANT ON 14.3.2011 III DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT U/S 12AA OF THE ACT 921 DAYS IV RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE 30.11.2009 V ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT REJECTING THE APPLICATIO N FOR RECTIFICATION PASSED 4.12.2009 VI ORDER U/S 154 WAS DISPATCHED TO THE ASSESSEE BY POST ON 7.12.2009 VII APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT REJECTING RECTI FICATION APPLICATION 14.3.2011 V) FROM THE ABOVE FACTUAL DETAILS, IT IS EVIDENT TH AT THE LD. CIT, PASSED THE ORDER U/S 12AA OF THE ACT GRANTING REGIS TRATION, TO THE APPELLANT W.E.F. A.Y 2009-10, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6 .2008/2.7.2008. THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THIS ORDER, ON 14.3.2011. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN APPEAL, ON 1 4.3.2011, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT REJ ECTING THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THUS, INTERESTINGLY THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2008/2.7.2008, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2009, WHEREBY APPLICAT ION U/S 154 OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 14.3.2011. THE REASON FOR SUCH INORDINATE DELAY, FOR FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 12AA IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE NON-UNDERSTANDING OF THE APPELLANT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF YEAR OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F. A.Y 2009-10 AS AGAINST ALLOWABLE W.E.F. A.Y 2007-08 . HOWEVER, THE EXACT TEXT OF THE REASON ASSIGNED BY THE APPELLANT, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, IN THE SAID APPLICATION AS PER CLAUSE 4 READ SINCE REGISTRATION HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED THE APPELLANT COULD NOT IM MEDIATELY 15 UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE ISSUE OF DIFFERENCE O F YEAR OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION W.E.F A.Y 2009-10 AS AGAINST ALLOWA BLE W.E.F. A.Y 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT IS SITUATED IN CHANDIGARH AND THE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO LOCATED IN CHANDIGARH. THE APPELL ANT IS A PUNJAB GOVERNMENT CONCERN AND IS ADMINISTERED BY COMPETENT PERSONS AND GUIDED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, IN ITS TAX MATTER S. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE APPELLANT TOOK 921 DAYS, TO UNDERSTAND THE SIMPLE FACT THAT REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED W.E.F. A. Y 2009-10 BY THE LD. CIT U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY CAUSE MUCH LESS THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN THE IMPUGNE D APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE CAUSE FOR DELAY, IN FILIN G THE APPEAL IS NOT PLAUSIBLE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT I S A GOVERNMENT CONCERN AND SITUATED AT CHANDIGARH. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEP TO DEMONSTRATE DUE DILIGENCE AND EVEN REASONAB LE CARE IN THE MATTER, IN PURSUING THE MATTER, AS CONTEMPLATED UND ER THE ACT. SUCH COMPLETE INACTION AND NEGLIGENCE, ON THE PART OF TH E APPELLANT, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE, FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY. THE CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR NON-FILING OF APPEAL IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND EXISTENCE OF SUF FICIENT CAUSE OR REASONABLE CAUSE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASON, DE LAY CANNOT BE CONDONED AND WHERE THERE WAS ACTUAL NEGLIGENCE AND INACTION WHICH LED TO IN INORDINATE DELAY, THE DELAY CANNOT BE CON DONED AS HELD IN DCIT V. JAYA PUBLICATIONS (2009) 309 ITR (AT) 245 ( CHENNAI). 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE OF DELAY, IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ADOPTED CALLOUS APPROACH AND DEMONSTRATED UTTER INDIFFERENCE IN THE MATTER. IN SUCH A FACT SITUATION, SUFFICIENT C AUSE AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 253(5) OF THE ACT DOES NOT EXIST. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO 16 EXPLAIN THE REASON, FOR THE DELAY IN FILLING THE AP PEAL, ON THE LAST DATE OF LIMITATION PERIOD AND CONSEQUENTLY THEREAFTER F OR EACH DAY, DELAY REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. 16. THE FACT SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE IS ALSO NOT COVERED EVEN UNDER THE LIBERAL APPROACH IN SUCH MATTERS. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT PERIOD FOR FILING THE APPEA L CANNOT BE EXTENDED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS HARD AND CONDONATION O F DELAY IS SOUGHT MERELY ON BENEVOLENCE AND NOT ON THE EXISTENCE OF S UFFICIENT CAUSE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS COMPLETE NEGLIGENCE, ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO COMPLETE ABSENCE OF DUE DILIGENC E, TO PURSUE THE MATTER IN QUESTION. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CAS E OF THE APPELLANT FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY, WHERE A SITUATION IS BEYO ND THE CONTROL OF ANY APPELLANT, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. DELAY IN FILING T HE APPEAL, IN THIS CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS OF THE CASE, REMAINS INEXPLIC ABLE AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL, ON THE LAST DAY OF LIMIT ATION AND EXPLAINED THE DELAY MADE THEREAFTER DAY BY DAY, TILL THE ACTUAL D ATE OF FILING OF APPEAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WHOLE OF THE DELAY MU ST BE EXPLAINED, AS HELD IN RAM LAL V. REWA COAL FILED LTD. AIR 1962 (S C) 36. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE WHERE WRONG ADVICE HAS BEEN TENDERED T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT AS NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS REGARD. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT DELAY IS NOT ATTRIBU TED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE SAID APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, T O THE WRONG ADVICE BY THE COUNSEL, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE TEXT OF THE SAI D APPLICATION REPRODUCED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE LEGAL AND FACT UAL DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO SUF FICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED A PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 17 ITAS NO. 1094 AND 1095/CHD/2011 17 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ITA NO. 2 57/CHD/2011, WHEREBY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, IN FI LING APPEAL, HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE BENCH, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIV EN IN THE MATTER, THESE APPEALS OF THE APPELLANT, IN ITAS NO. 1094 AN D 1095/CHD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09 ARE ALSO DIS MISSED. THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE LD. CIT HAS PASSED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS, TREATING THE APPELL ANT AS NON REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, UNDE R REFERENCE. AS THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, IN FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 12AA HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE BE NCH, SUCH APPEALS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO. 258/CHD/2011 18 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 4.12.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT:- ORDER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 THE ASSESSEE, PUNJAB HERITAGE AND TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, SECTOR 38, CHANDIGARH VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 30.11.2009 HAS STA TED THAT ORDER U/S 12AA OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 PASSED BY THIS OFFICE ON 30 .6.2008 GRANTING REGISTRATION TO IT W.E.F. THE A.Y 2009-10 IS NOT CO RRECT. REGISTRATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED TO IT FROM THE A.Y 2007-08. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS CONSIDERED IN THE LIG HT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE. THE ASS ESSEE SOCIETY FILED AN APPLICATION WITH THIS OFFICE ON 18.12.2006 IN THE P RESCRIBED PROFORMA REQUESTING FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ENCLOSING THEREWITH A COPY OF BYE-LAWS AND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT. ON PERUSAL OF CLAUSE 26 OF THE BYE-LA WS, IT WAS NOTICED, THAT THE DISSOLUTION CLAUSE WAS INCONSISTENT AND IMPRO PER AND WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIETIES REG ISTRATION ACT, 1860. THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS FILED ON 22.6. 2007 INFORMING THE SOCIETY THAT ITS CASE CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY ON AME NDMENT OF THIS CLAUSE AND RECEIPT OF AMENDED RULES AND REGULATIONS. A FRESH APPLICATION ALONGWITH A COPY OF AMENDED DI SSOLUTION CLAUSE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.4.2008. AS THE FRESH A PPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, AN ORDER U/S 12AA OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED ON 30.6.2008 GRANTING REGISTRATION TO THE SOCIETY FROM THE A.Y 2009-10 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE ACT , THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR 18 GRANTING REGISTRATION RETROSPECTIVELY. AS THERE WA S FILING OF FRESH & CORRECT APPLICATION ON 15.4.2008 I.E. F.Y 2008-09, THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION FROM A.Y 2009-10 ONLY AND REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 WAS RIGHTLY GRANTED TO IT FROM THE A. Y 2009-10 AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT. TH ERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION F OR RECTIFICATION OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDER IS THUS REJECTED. SD/- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II CHANDIGARH 18 (I) A BARE PERUSAL OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION, DATED 18.12.2006 , FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. THE CIT, INFORMED THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT, VIDE LETTER DATED 22.6.2007 THAT THE IMP UGNED APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY. IT C AN ONLY BE CONSIDERED BY AN AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE 26 OF THE DEED OF DECLARATION OF THE BOARD DEALING WITH DISSOLUTION, BEING CONTRAR Y TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT INTE R-ALIA FILED FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, ON 15.4.2008, ALONG WITH AMENDED DISSOLUTION CLAUSE. ACCORDINGLY TH E CIT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT FROM A.Y 2009-10 A ND NOT FROM A.Y 2007-08, AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN TERMS OF PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT. THE CIT REJECTED THE RECTIFICAT ION APPLICATION VIDE ORDER DATED 4.12.2009, ON THE GROUND THAT HAVING RE GARD TO THE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. AGAINST SUCH REGISTRATION OF THE IMPUGNED APPLICATI ON, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE BENCH. 18 (II) A BARE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CLEARLY REVEALS THAT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD M UST BE OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTAB LISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING, ON POINTS ON WHICH THER E MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON MERIT ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD U/ S 154 OF THE ACT. THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE HON 'BLE APEX COURT, IN T.S. BALARAM ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS AND OTHERS (19 71) 82 ITR 50 19 (SC). APPARENT MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO RE-HEAR A CASE, DECIDED ON MERIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVERSAL OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO SEEK REVIEW AND REVERSAL OF THE ISSUES DECIDED, IN THE ORDER, ON MERIT, IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE DOES NOT EXIST RECT IFIABLE MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSEN CE OF EXISTENCE OF FOUNDATIONAL FACTS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. THUS, HAVING REGARD TO THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE AND RELEVANT RECORDS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE CIT, AS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECID ED BY THE CIT, IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FACT SITUATION AND THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT R.W. SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(1)AND I TS SUB-CLAUSE (AA). A DRASTIC AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE CURBING THE POWER O F CONDONATION FOR REGISTRATION COVERING THE PAST YEARS BY ADDITION OF A PROVISO AND SUB-CLAUSE (AA) TO SECTION 12A(1)(II) AND SUBSTITUTION CLAUSE (B) IN THE PROVISO W.E.F. 1.6.2007 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007. ANY APPLICATION FILED ON OR AFTER 1.6.2007 IS ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION ONLY FOR THE F .Y DURING WHICH REGISTRATION IS FILED. FURTHER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CIT HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 1 2AA OF THE ACT W.E.F. A.Y 2009-10, HAVING REGARD TO THE FRESH APPLICATION DAT ED 14.4.2008, FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE MUCH LESS THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALREADY DIS MISSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO. 257/CHD/2011, FOR THE REASONS STATED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF T HIS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22.08.2012 SD/- SD/- (H. L. KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH, THE 22.08.2012 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE CIT(A)/THE DR 20 ITA NO. 258/CHD/2011 18 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 4.12.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT:- ORDER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 THE ASSESSEE, PUNJAB HERITAGE AND TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, SECTOR 38, CHANDIGARH VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 30.11.2009 HAS STA TED THAT ORDER U/S 12AA OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 PASSED BY THIS OFFICE ON 30 .6.2008 GRANTING REGISTRATION TO IT W.E.F. THE A.Y 2009-10 IS NOT CO RRECT. REGISTRATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED TO IT FROM THE A.Y 2007-08. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS CONSIDERED IN THE LIG HT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE. THE ASS ESSEE SOCIETY FILED AN APPLICATION WITH THIS OFFICE ON 18.12.2006 IN THE P RESCRIBED PROFORMA REQUESTING FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ENCLOSING THEREWITH A COPY OF BYE-LAWS AND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT. ON PERUSAL OF CLAUSE 26 OF THE BYE-LA WS, IT WAS NOTICED, THAT THE DISSOLUTION CLAUSE WAS INCONSISTENT AND IMPRO PER AND WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIETIES REG ISTRATION ACT, 1860. THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS FILED ON 22.6. 2007 INFORMING THE SOCIETY THAT ITS CASE CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY ON AME NDMENT OF THIS CLAUSE AND RECEIPT OF AMENDED RULES AND REGULATIONS. A FRESH APPLICATION ALONGWITH A COPY OF AMENDED DI SSOLUTION CLAUSE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.4.2008. AS THE FRESH A PPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, AN ORDER U/S 12AA OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED ON 30.6.2008 GRANTING REGISTRATION TO THE SOCIETY FROM THE A.Y 2009-10 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE ACT , THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION RETROSPECTIVELY. AS THERE WA S FILING OF FRESH & CORRECT APPLICATION ON 15.4.2008 I.E. F.Y 2008-09, THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION FROM A.Y 2009-10 ONLY AND REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 WAS RIGHTLY GRANTED TO IT FROM THE A. Y 2009-10 AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT. TH ERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION F OR RECTIFICATION OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDER IS THUS REJECTED. SD/- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II 21 CHANDIGARH 18 (I) A BARE PERUSAL OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION, DATED 18.12.2006 , FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. THE CIT, INFORMED THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT, VIDE LETTER DATED 22.6.2007 THAT THE IMP UGNED APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY. IT C AN ONLY BE CONSIDERED BY AN AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE 26 OF THE DEED OF DECLARATION OF THE BOARD DEALING WITH DISSOLUTION, BEING CONTRAR Y TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT INTE R-ALIA FILED FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, ON 15.4.2008, ALONG WITH AMENDED DISSOLUTION CLAUSE. ACCORDINGLY TH E CIT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT FROM A.Y 2009-10 A ND NOT FROM A.Y 2007-08, AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN TERMS OF PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT. THE CIT REJECTED THE RECTIFICAT ION APPLICATION VIDE ORDER DATED 4.12.2009, ON THE GROUND THAT HAVING RE GARD TO THE FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. AGAINST SUCH REGISTRATION OF THE IMPUGNED APPLICATI ON, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE BENCH. 18 (II) A BARE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CLEARLY REVEALS THAT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD M UST BE OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTAB LISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING, ON POINTS ON WHICH THER E MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON MERIT ON A DEBATABLE ISSUE DOES NOT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD U/S 154 OF TH E ACT. THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE HON'BLE APEX C OURT, IN T.S. BALARAM ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS AND OTHERS (1971) 8 2 ITR 50 (SC). APPARENT MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW CAN BE RECTIFIED U/ S 154 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INTE RPRETED TO RE-HEAR A 22 CASE, DECIDED ON MERIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVERSAL OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL MATRIX OF T HE CASE. THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO SEEK REVIEW AND R EVERSAL OF THE ISSUES DECIDED IN ANY ORDER ON MERIT IN THE GUISE OF RECTI FICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE DOES NOT EXIST RECTIFICATION MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXISTENCE OF FOUNDATIONAL FACTS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVO KED. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL MATRIX OF TH E PRESENT CASE AND RELEVANT RECORDS, THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE CIT, AS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE CIT, IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FACT SITUATION AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS THE C IT HAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE FRESH APPLICATION DATED 14.4.2008, FILED BY THE APPELLANT, W.E.F A.Y 2009-10. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE MUCH LESS THE MISTAK E APPARENT FROM RECORD. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE CON DONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO. 257/CHD/2 011, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED.