Gopal Girls Public School Samiti, Sultanpur V. CIT, Faizabad

ITA 205/ALLD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 20520714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 205/ALLD./2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04 GOPAL GIRLS PUBLIC SCHOOL SAMITI, VS. THE COMMISS IONER OF OM NAGAR, SULTANPUR. INCOME-TAX, FAIZABAD. (PAN :AABTG 0200 H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVEEN GODBOLE, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.P. SRIVASTAVA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 08.11.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT, FAIZABAD DATED 12.09.2011 U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD MOVED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT BY APPLICATION DATED 12.04.2007, SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE WH EN IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE I.E., 17.09.2002, BUT THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE REGISTRATION W AS GRANTED W.E.F.01.04.2007. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, FAIZABAD, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE ITA NO. 205/ALLD/2011 2 THE ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH, WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 06. 02.2008 IN ITA NO. 405/ALLD/2007 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMIS SIONER ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIT HAS NOT GIVEN SPECIFIC REASONS FOR NOT GRANTING THE REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE REQUESTED BY THE SOCIETY AND DIRECTED TO PASS A SPE AKING ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF CONDONATION OF DELAY AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT, ACCORDINGLY, TOOK UP THE MAT TER FOR CONSIDERATION RELATING TO DELAY IN FILING THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION AFRESH . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILED REPLY BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND THE REASONS FOR DELAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS THE SEVERE AILMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY, SHRI RAM GOPAL BARNWAL, WHICH AFFECTED THE WORKING OF THE SOCIETY IN THE INITIAL PERIOD. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY T HE COMMISSIONER, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER HAD FAVOURED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER, NOTED TH AT IT IS HIS SATISFACTION AND NOT OF OTHERS, THEREFORE, THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE S UBORDINATE OFFICERS IS ONLY AN AID IN EXERCISING HIS POWERS. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF THE CASE. THE SECON D ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REGARDING IGNORANCE OF THE LEGAL PROVI SIONS WAS ALSO NOT DECIDED FAVOURABLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSISTED BY COU NSEL AND THE CAS AND ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE REJECTED. THE ONLY POINT LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION WAS ILLNESS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE S OCIETY. THE LD. CIT FOUND THAT ITA NO. 205/ALLD/2011 3 AFFAIRS OF THE SOCIETY ARE BEING ATTENDED TO BY THE MANAGER AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. THE DOCUMENTS FILED INDICATED REGULAR GROWTH IN THE SCHOOL RUN BY THE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THA T WHILE OTHER OFFICE BEARERS WERE FULLY ACTIVE AND ATTENDING TO ALL OTHER WORKS OF TH E SOCIETY, THE TIMELY FILING OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS PREVENTED BY ILLNE SS OF THE PRESIDENT. THE LD. CIT, THEREFORE, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION FOR DELAY IN MOVING THE APPLICATION IN TIME AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE SAME AND IT WAS R EITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE IT ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2007 AS WAS EARLIER DIRECTED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL STATED THA T THE LD. CIT HAS FAILED TO ACT JUDICIOUSLY IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY, SHRI RAM GOPAL BARNWAL WAS ADMITTED IN APOLLO HOSPITAL AND LATER O N OPEN HEART SURGERY WAS PERFORMED AND ACCORDINGLY, ENTIRE FAMILY WAS DEPRES SED. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE LD. CIT IGNORED RECOMMENDATION OF ADDL. COMMISSIONE R FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THAT THE LD. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE SOCIETY WERE IGNORANT OF LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE I N SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED PHOTO COPIES OF LETTER OF DR. SATYENDR A KUMAR DATED 12.01.2003 AND OTHER PHOTO COPIES OF TREATMENT PROVIDED BY ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE IN THE YEARS 2005 AND 2006. HE HAS ALSO RELI ED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE ITA NO. 205/ALLD/2011 4 OF KARANDHAI TAMIL SANGAM VS. CIT, 11 ITR (TRIB) 43 0 (CHENNAI), IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION RETROSPECTIVELY, THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RE SEARCH VS. DIT(EXEMPTION), 310 ITR (AT) 397, IN WHICH THE DELAY IN MOVING REGISTRA TION WAS NOT FOUND WILLFUL OR DELIBERATE, THEREFORE, THE DELAY WAS CONDONED AND T HE ORDER OF ITAT, LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF UP FOREST CORPORATION VS. CIT, 13 MTC 938, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION EVEN WITHOUT REGISTRATION. THE DELAY WAS CONDONED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE AILMENT OF SHRI RAM GOPA L BARNWAL, THEREFORE, THE DELAY WAS RIGHTLY NOT CONDONED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO SECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT, THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF ANY TRUST OR INS TITUTION UNLESS SUCH INSTITUTION MADE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION IN PRESCRIBED FORM BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE 01.07.1973 OR BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE I NSTITUTION WHICHEVER IS LATER AND SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTI ON 12AA OF THE IT ACT. PROVISO IS PROVIDED TO THE ABOVE SECTION THAT WHERE THE APPLIC ATION FOR REGISTRATION IS MADE ITA NO. 205/ALLD/2011 5 AFTER EXPIRY OF AFORESAID PERIOD, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION (I) FROM THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE TRUST OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTION, IF THE COMMISSIONER IS, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, SATISFIED THAT THE PERSO N IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME WAS PREVENTED FROM MAKING THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE EX PIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID FOR SUFFICIENT REASON; (II) FROM THE 1 ST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE, IF THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT SO SATISFIED. F URTHER PROVISO IS PROVIDED THAT THESE PROVISIONS SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY APPLICATION MADE ON OR AFTER 01.06.2007. IN THE PRESENT CASE, APPLICATION WAS FILED PRIOR TO 01 .06.2007, THEREFORE, THE ABOVE PROVISIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WOULD APPLY. IT IS THE COMMISSIONER TO SEE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM THAT SUCH PERSON W AS PREVENTED FROM MAKING REGISTRATION APPLICATION BEFORE EXPIRY OF THE PERIO D AFORESAID, FOR SUFFICIENT REASONS. THEREFORE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE S UFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER TO SATISFY HIM THAT THE RE EXISTS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AFTER THE P ERIOD PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. HOWEVER, IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID NO T FILE ANY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION SO RAISED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DUE TO ILLNESS OF SHRI RAM GOPAL BARNW AL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY, APPLICATION COULD NOT BE FILED FOR REGISTR ATION ON TIME. THE ASSESSEE TOOK SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS IN THE MATTER BUT DURING THE C OURSE OF PENDENCY OF APPEAL, NO ITA NO. 205/ALLD/2011 6 EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CO NTENTION. IT IS FILED ON THE LAST DATE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 02.11.2012. THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED PHOTOCOPIES OF SOME MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF SHRI R AM GOPAL BARNWAL TO SHOW THAT IN THE YEAR 2005 AND 2006, HE HAS UNDERGONE TR EATMENT IN ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE. THERE WERE NO EVIDEN CES TO SHOW THAT IN THE YEAR 2002, 2003 AND 2004, SHRI RAM GOPAL BARNWAL WAS NOT ABLE TO MOVE THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION. SOME DATES HAVE BEEN PROV IDED IN THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE TO SHOW THAT HE HAS OBTAINED SOME MEDICINES OF BLOO D PRESSURE AND NOTHING IS EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS PREVENTED FROM MOVING THE REG ISTRATION APPLICATION IN THE YEAR OF EXISTENCE OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IN THE YE AR 2002 OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT FOUND THA T AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ATTENDED TO BY THE MANAGER AND OTHER MEMBERS O F THE SOCIETY. NOTHING IS EXPLAINED AS TO WHY THE REMAINING OFFICE BEARERS OF THE SOCIETY COULD NOT MOVE REGISTRATION APPLICATION WITH THE PRESCRIBED TIME. SUFFICIENT REASON WOULD MEAN THE REASON WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSE SSEE. SUFFICIENT REASON WOULD ALSO MEAN WHICH PREVENTS A REASONABLE MAN OF ORDINA RY PRUDENCE ACTING UNDER THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONAFIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAS, HOWEVER, FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT ACTE D UNDER THE BONA FIDE MANNER BY NOT MOVING THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION WITHIN TIME . RATHER, THE FACT WOULD SHOW THAT IT IS A CASE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND INACTION IN NOT MOVING REGISTRATION ITA NO. 205/ALLD/2011 7 APPLICATION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PROVIDE D UNDER THE ACT. THE REASONS FOR CONDONATION DEPEND UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. THEREFORE, THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT CORRECTLY NOTED THAT HE W AS NOT BOUND BY THE RECOMMENDATION OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER BECAUSE ACCORD ING TO SECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT, IT WAS THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT MOVING THE REGISTRATI ON APPLICATION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. NO KNOWLEDGE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THUS, IT IS CL EAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE EXISTS ANY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR N OT FILING THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION WITHIN THE TIME. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y IN FILING THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQU ATE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, DO NOT FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 205/ALLD/2011 8 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE ASSTT. REGISTRAR TRUE COPY