Museum of Goa (MOG) Foundation., Goa V. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bengaluru., Bangalore

ITA 117/PAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1246 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND SHANKAR MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINMAY S KAMAT; SHAM J KAMAT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A; 6; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 11 6 & 117 /P A N/201 6 MUSEUM OF GOA (MOG) FOUNDATION, PLOT NO. 79, PILERNE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PILERNE, BARDEZ, GOA. VS. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , B A NGALORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHAM J. KAMAT C A & SHRI CHINMAY S. KAMAT - CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANAND S HANKAR MARATHE - DR DATE OF HEARING : 30 / 0 8 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 / 0 8 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE THE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 116/PAN/2016 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE DATED 27/11/2015 AGAINST THE REFUSAL TO GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26/06/2015. ITA NO. 117/PAN/2016 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE DATED 25/04/2016 AGAINST THE REFUSAL TO GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09/10/2015. 2. SHRI SHAM J. KAMAT, C A AND SHRI CHINMAY S. KAMAT, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ANAND SHANKAR MARATHE , DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2 ITA NO. 11 6 & 117 /P A N/201 6 3 . WHEN THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TWO APPEALS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION ON 26/06/2015 , INITIALLY , FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A. IT WAS , THEN INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID APPLICATION WAS UNTRACEABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION DATED 09/10/2015. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE MEAN TIME, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 26/06/2015 WAS TRACED AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27/11/2015 . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE S SUCCEEDING APPLICATION DATED 09/10/2015 WAS ALSO DISPOSED OF BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 25/04/2016 DISMISSING THE SAME. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE SECOND APPLICATION WAS IDENTICAL TO THE FIRST APPLICATION HE DID NOT WISH TO PRESS THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 117/PAN/2016. TO THIS SUBMISSION, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 117/PAN/2016 IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 4 . I N RESPECT OF ITA NO. 116/PAN/2016 , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 141 DAYS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AFTER ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2015 WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR , HE FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 27/11/2015 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), COPY OF WHI CH WAS SHOWN AT PAGE N O . 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTING THE RELIEF FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), H OWEVER TOWARDS THE END OF THE 06 MONTHS PERIOD AS NO COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFF ICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT TILL TODAY THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF. 3 ITA NO. 11 6 & 117 /P A N/201 6 5. IN REPLY, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS BEFORE FILING THE APPEAL . HE OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY . 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS . IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL A N D WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE SAME AND WE DO SO . IN THE RESULT, DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL STANDS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL HEARD ON MERITS. 7 . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION O F T H E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AND THE SAME HAD BEEN SENT BY COURIER. THE DETAILS W ERE SHOWN AT PAGE NOS. 51 TO 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE COURIER ACKNOWLEDGMENT AT PAGE NO. 59. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT EVEN IN THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. 8 . WHEN THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT THESE EVIDENCES HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AND IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE BY THE BENCH TO LOOK INTO FRESH EVIDENCES WITH OUT T H E FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ON THE SAID EVIDENCES , I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION, IF THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), FOR RE - ADJUDICATION . TO THIS, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. 9. CONSEQUENTLY, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS MENTIONED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , THE ISSUE S IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 ITA NO. 11 6 & 117 /P A N/201 6 (EXEMPTIONS), FOR RE - ADJUD I CATION AND WE DO SO. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) IS DIRECTED TO RE - ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 116/PAN/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND ITA NO. 117/PAN/2016 STANDS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TUESDAY , THE 3 0 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3 0 TH AUGUST , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE MUSEUM OF GOA (MOG) FOUNDATION, PLOT NO. 79, PILERNE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PILERNE, BARDEZ, GOA. 2 . THE REVENUE. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE. 3 . THE ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, PANAJI. 4 . THE D.R . 5 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI