National Federation of Information Commissions in India (NFICI), New Delhi V. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 1955/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7663 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANJALA SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Condonation of delay
• Section: 80G; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1955 & 1956 /HYD./201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 16 - 17 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INFORMATION VS. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) COMMISSION IN IN DIA (NFICI) HYDERABAD NEW DELHI . [PAN: AA BAN3354Q ] (APP ELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A V RAGHURAM, A.R. FOR REVENUE : S MT. ANJALA SAHU, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 /02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /03/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. THIS ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR A.Y 2016 - 17 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 31 . 5.2016 IN CASE NO.74(11)/12AA&80G/15 - 16 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) AND 80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. ITA 1955 AND 1956/HYD/18 AY: 2016 - 17 NFICI, HYD. 2 AT THE OUTSET IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 784 DAYS IN FILING OF BOTH THESE APPEALS. ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 5 TH FEB., 2019 REQUESTING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING REASONS FOR DELAY, AS UNDER. I, SUSHIL KUMA R, S/O. LATE SHAM SUNDER MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. 3/15, SUBHASH NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110027 DO SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE ON OATH AS FOLLOWS: 1. I AM THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR THE APPELLANT FEDERATION WHICH FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRI BUNAL AND IS CONVERSANT WITH FACTS OF THE CASE AND COMPETENT TO DEPOSE IN THIS AFFIDAVIT. 2. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(E) WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 04.06.2016. THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON OR BEFORE 0 3.08.2016. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS FILED ON 26.09.2018 WITH A DELAY OF 784 DAYS. 3. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS DUE TO INADVERTENCE AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE OFFICE OF THE APPELLANT GOT SHIFTED FROM HYDERABAD TO NEW DELHI FROM MAY 2017. EARLIER TO SHIFTING OF THE OFFICE, NO MEETING OF THE BODY WAS HELD TILL 20 - 08 - 2016 AND EVEN IN THE MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON THAT DAY, DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT WERE DISCUSSED AND THE ISSUE OF FIL ING OF APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (EXEMPTIONS) WAS NOT DISCUSSED AS IT WAS NOT BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE MEETING. THUS, INADVERTENTLY THERE WAS NO FOCUS ON FILING OF APPEAL AND IT CONTINUED EVEN AFTER THE OFFICE WAS SHIFTED TO NEW DELHI. THE APPELLANT SOCIETY'S FILE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES OF HYDERABAD TO NEW DELHI, HOWEVER, AS IT HAPPENED TO BE REGISTERED UNDER STATE ACT, THE NEW DELHI OFFICE REJECTED REGISTERING AMENDMENTS. THUS , A REQUEST WAS MADE TO TRANSFER BACK THE FILE TO HYDERABAD. EXCEPT PURSUING THIS ISSUE OF REGISTERING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS REGARDING CLAUSE RELATING TO 'ABROAD' AND 'DISSOLUTION', ATTENTION WAS NOT PAID TO FILING OF APPEAL. ONLY WHEN MR.RADHAKRISHNA MA THUR, CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS IN INDIA (NFICI) DURING A MEETING HELD ON 30.06.2018 CAME TO KNOW OF THE PROBLEMS FACED WITH REGARD TO AMENDMENTS, HE ENQU IRED THE REASONS FOR SUCH AMENDMENTS AND ON COMING TO KNOW ABOUT THE ORDER OF THE REJECTION OF REGISTRATION IX] S.12A AND APPROVAL U/S.80G ENQUIRED ABOUT FILING OF APPEAL. HAVING COME TO KNOW THAT NO APPEAL WAS FILED, HE IMMEDIATELY DIRECTED FOR FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'B1E TRIBUNAL. AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF MR. RADHAKRISHNA MATHUR, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE PRESENT COUNSEL AND MET HIM IN ITA 1955 AND 1956/HYD/18 AY: 2016 - 17 NFICI, HYD. 3 THE SECOND WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, 2018 AND ON OUR INSTRUCTIONS THE APPEAL IS PREPARED AND FILED BEFORE THE HON'B1E TRI BUNAL, HOWEVER WITH A DELAY OF 784 DAYS. THUS THE DELAY IS DUE TO INADVERTENCE AND IGNORANCE OF LEGAL PROCEDURE. THE SOCIETY DOES NOT GAIN ANYTHING BY FILING THE APPEAL WITH A DELAY. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS NEITHER WILLFU L NOR WANTON BUT FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASONS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE HON'B1E TRIBUNAL IS NOT PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 784 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT WOULD BE PUT TO IRREPARABLE LOSS AND INJURY WHICH CANNOT BE COMPENSATED BY AN Y OTHER MEANS. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'B1E TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 784 DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE REVENUE HAS NOT REBUTTED ALL THESE ABOVE AVE RMENTS . WE THUS QUOTE HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST KATIJI REPORTED IN 167 ITR 471 (SC) THAT ORDINARILY A LITIGANT DOES NOT GAIN ANYTHING BY CAUSING DELAY IN LITIGATION AND ALL TECHNICAL ASPECTS MUST MAKE WAY FOR TH E CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE . WE THUS CONDONE THE IMPUGNED IDENTICAL DELAY OF 784 DAYS IN FILING OF BOTH THESE APPEALS. 2. WE COME TO ASSESSEES FORMER APPEAL ITA 1955/H/ RAISING THE SOLE ISSUE OF SEC.12AA REGISTRATION. A PERUSAL OF CIT( E ) S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE REVEALS THAT HE HAD RAISED CERTAIN OBJECTIONS QUA THE ASSESSEES DISSOLUTION CLAUSE AND SOUGHT FOR ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS WHICH THE LATTER HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH. IT THUS APPEARS AS AN INSTANCE OF ASSESSEES FAILURE PER SE I N MAKING GOOD THE SHORTFALLS IN ITS IMPUGNED REGISTRATION APPLICATION. FACED WITH THIS, LEARNED COUNSEL STATED AT THE BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOW COOPERATE IN CASE IT IS AFFORDED A FRESH INNINGS BEFORE THE CIT(E). IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OFFERI NG SCHOLARSHIPS TO THE NEEDY STUDENTS IS INDEED A CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT. ITA 1955 AND 1956/HYD/18 AY: 2016 - 17 NFICI, HYD. 4 3. THE REVENUE PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON CIT(E)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE DENYING SEC.12AA REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE . 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT (E) S MAIN GROUND OF DENYING SEC.12AA REGISTRATION IS THAT OF FAILURE ON ASSESSEES PART IN REMOVING ALL DEFECTS . WE THUS RESTORE THE INSTANT ISSUE BACK TO HIM TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE OR ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPEAR BEFORE CIT(E) ON OR BEFORE 30.07.2021 WITH ALL RELEVANT EVIDEN CES ; AT HIS OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY. THE ASSESSEES FORMER APPEAL ITA 1955/H/ 18 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS AND ASSESSEES LATTER APPEAL ITA 1956 /H/18 INVOLVING SEC.80G PROCEEDINGS BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE ALSO STANDS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. BOTH THESE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. A COPY OF THIS COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CASE FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29 /03/2021. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH MARCH, 2021 *GMV ITA 1955 AND 1956/HYD/18 AY: 2016 - 17 NFICI, HYD. 5 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INFORMATION COMMISSION IN INDIA , NFICI, C/O AV RAGHURAM, CA, FLAT NO.610, 6 TH FLOOR, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001 2. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. 3. ITO [E] WARD 2, HYDERABAD 4. D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD 5 . GUARD FILE