Sri Vishnu Mohan Foundation, CHENNAI V. ADIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1544/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77334 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CH ENNAI. . , . !' !' !' !' , # # # # $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1544/MDS/2013 SRI VISHNU MOHAN FOUNDATION, NEW NO. 18, APARTMENT B, NEW GIRI ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. [PAN:BTPPS8535K] VS. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI. ( %& %& %& %& /APPELLANT ) ( '(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT ) %& ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE '(%& ) * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT ) + / DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2014 ,- ) + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2014 . . . . / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI, D ATED 18.04.2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A FOUNDATION, APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THE LD. DIT(E) REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUS T HAS CLEARLY CARRIED I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1544 1544 1544 1544/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 2 OUT RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY AND THUS, DOES NOT QUALIFY F OR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT BY ORDER DATED 18.04. 2011. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE DIT(E) DATED 18.04.2011 WITH A DELAY OF 755 DAYS. THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AND STATED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AGAI NST THE ORDER ON 15.07.2013 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INTIMATED THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 755 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL, SINCE THE ORDER HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED IN THE 2 ND WEEK OF MAY, 2011. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM SEVE RE RESPIRATORY DISTRESS ON ACCOUNT OF A CONGENITAL HEART CONDITION AND DEPILATED POOR PHYSICAL HEALTH, PREVENTING HIM FROM CONSISTENT WOR K IN RESPECT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. THE OTHER TRUSTEES WHO ARE ALL RESIDING OUT OF CHENNAI WERE ALSO UNABLE TO COORDINATE WITH PROFESS IONAL CONSULTANTS TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION IN THE AFFIDAVIT, HE ALSO FILED MEDI CAL CERTIFICATE AND SUBJECTED THAT DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS POINTED OUT T HAT 755 DAYS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY DELAY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PROPER REASONS TO CONDONE THE DELAY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM ILLNESS, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TRUST MUST I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1544 1544 1544 1544/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 3 BE AVAILABLE TO TAKE CARE OF ASSESSEES FOUNDATION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THERE IS A DELAY OF 755 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL. IN ITS AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM S EVERE RESPIRATORY DISTRESS ON ACCOUNT OF A CONGENITAL HEART CONDITION AND DEPILATED POOR PHYSICAL HEALTH. THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. HE SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO TRUSTEE AVAILABLE SINC E THEY ARE RESIDING OUTSIDE CHENNAI. HE ALSO FILED CERTIFICATE AND WE H AVE GONE THROUGH THE CERTIFICATE. THE CERTIFICATE IS NOT CLEAR FROM WHICH DATE TO WHICH DATE HE HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM THE DISEASE. IT ONLY SAY S THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GETTING THE TREATMENT WITH DR. R. GOVINDARAJAN O F SHRI HARI CLINIC. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED PROPER REA SONS TO CONDONE THE DELAY EXCEPT STATING THAT HE IS CONTINUOUSLY SU FFERING FROM SEVERE ILL HEALTH. IN SO FAR AS ANOTHER SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER TRUSTEES, BUT THEY ARE NOT RESIDING AT CHENNAI. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR SI MPLE REASON THAT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRUSTEES AR E NOT REQUIRED TO STAY AT CHENNAI. IF THE TRUSTEES ARE DUTIFUL, WHETHER TH EY RESIDE AT CHENNAI OR OUTSIDE THE CHENNAI, THEY CAN FILE THE APPEAL. T HEREFORE, THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS REJECTED. THE DOCTOR CERTIFICAT E IS ALSO NOT CLEAR I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1544 1544 1544 1544/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 4 ABOUT THE DURATION OF ASSESSEES AILMENT AND THEREF ORE, ON THIS GROUND, THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED. THUS, BY CONSIDERING ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 755 DAYS. 5. UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADHU DADHA V. ACIT 317 ITR 458, WHEREI N THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS DISMISSED. THE ASSES SEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AFTER A DELAY OF 558 DAY S ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEA L. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER ELABORATELY DISCUSSING THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL ASPECTS, REJECTED THE APPEAL AS T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY SUFFICIENT REASONS OR CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. ON FURTHER APPEAL: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE CAUSE O/DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, E SPECIALLY WHEN THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS GIVEN CHARGE TO F ILE THE APPEAL HAD DIED EXACTLY ONE YEAR AFTER THE LAST DATE FOR FILIN G OF THE APPEAL. EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THE ASSE SSEE HAD TAKEN MORE THAN SIX MONTHS TO FILE THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HA D NEITHER GIVEN ANY PARTICULAR OR DETAILS IN THE AFFIDAVIT AS TO THE DA TE ON WHICH THE PAPERS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE COUNSEL FOR PREPARING THE A PPEAL AND ON WHAT OCCASION THE ASSESSEE ENQUIRED ABOUT THE PROGRESS I N PREPARING THE APPEAL AND FILING IT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN A PROPER PLEA TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE GIVING EVIDENCE AND PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE D OUBT FOR THE DELAY. THERE WAS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN PROP ERLY TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS AL SO CONSIDERED THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1544 1544 1544 1544/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 5 ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF MADHU DADHA (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 29 TH OF MAY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 29.05.2014 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.