M/s Spoorthi Sadan, Bangalore V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgaum

ITA 168/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88730 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINAY SINGH RAWAT
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GURUNATHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Ignorance of law
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 16 8 /PNJ/2014 M/S. SPOORTHI SADAN NR. ANJUMAN COLLEGE, HUNASAGI ROAD, TALLIKOTI 586 214, DIST. BIJAPUR. PAN : AAJTS963 9J (APPELLANT) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELGAUM (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : V.K. GURUNATHAN , ADV. REVENUE BY : VINAY SINGH RAWAT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 05/01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 /01/2015 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL 1. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE DELAY IS OF MORE THAN 997 DAYS. 2. THE LD. AR BEFORE US CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY HAD BEEN CAUSED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE RELEVANT LAW THAT IN CASE THE REGISTRATION IS NOT ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 11. HE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH IT WAS CONTENDED THAT EVEN THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT THEY WILL BE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONTRIBUTION 2 ITA NO. 168 /PNJ/2014 TOWARDS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ONLY AND THEREFORE THE D ELAY WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND MUST BE CONDONED. 3. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND AGITATED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED THAT NO DOUBT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN C ASE THE TRIBUNAL IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREVENTED TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME DUE TO SUFFICIENT REASONS, BUT NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE DUE DATE CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE SUFFIC IENT REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE DELAY IS OF AROUND 3 YEARS. IN OUR OPINION, IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE AN EXCUSE. EVERY CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY MUST KNOW THE LAW BY WHICH HE IS GOVERNED. IF THE TRUST HAS BEEN CREATED, THE TRUST IS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. AR THOUGH VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT IT WAS UNDER BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT REGISTRATION U/S 12A WAS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE RELIEF BY WAY OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT AND THAT IT HAD BEEN ADVISED ACCORDINGLY, BUT WHEN QUESTIONED COULD NOT GIVE THE NAME OF THE COUNSEL WHO HAD ADVISED IN THIS REGARD. EVEN WHEN WE ASKED FOR THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONCERNED PERSON, THE LD. AR EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FILE THE SAME . WE WERE ALSO SURPRISED TO SEE THAT THE TRUST DEED HAS BEEN NOTARIZED EVEN THOUGH THE TRUST HAS BEEN CREATED AS PER THE HISTORY GIVEN IN THE TRUST DEED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPERTIES OF SCHOOL. IN OUR OPINION, A TRUST CANNOT HOLD/ACQUIRE IMMOVEABLE PROPE RTIES UNTIL AND UNLESS IT IS REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE A PERSON HAS PUT HIS PROPERTY IN THE TRUST. ALTHOUGH THE TRUST WAS CREATED ON 15.3.2010 BUT THE LD. AR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND BALANCE S HEET, AUDITED OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2010, 31.3.2011, 31.3.2012, 31.3.2013 AND 31.3.2014. RATHER, HE EXPLAINED HIS INABILITY TO SUBMIT THE SAME. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR 3 ITA NO. 168 /PNJ/2014 CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN T HE REASON FOR EACH AND EVERY DAY OF THE DELAY. EXCEPT SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE LAW, HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR THE DELAY OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE LD. AR, IN OUR OPINION, IS ITSELF SELF - DEF EATING AS IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12A & 11, HOW THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST U/S 12A WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME OF ITS CREATION ? THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE WHE RE THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURINDER KUMAR BOVEJA VS. CWT, 287 ITR 52 (DEL.) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : IN ORDER TO GET CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FI LING OF AN APPEAL, A PARTY HAS TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE. SUFFICIENT CAUSE MEANS A CAUSE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY, E.G., A MISTAKE MADE IN GOOD FAITH IN RESPECT OF EXERCISE OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. BUT WHERE THERE IS WANT OF DUE CARE AND ATTENTION OR WANT OF DUE DILIGENCE OR SUFFICIENT CAUS E THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED. WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS ABNORMAL. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ALSO DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.V.A.L. KULANDAGAN CHETTIAR , 300 ITR 5 (SC) WHERE DELAY WAS FOR 1017 DAYS. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT ADMITTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED AS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 7 /01/2015. S D / - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER S D / - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 0 7 /01/ 201 5 *SSL* 4 ITA NO. 168 /PNJ/2014 COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER