SHREE UMIYAJI CHARITABKE TRUST, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 2461/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3288 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAHI S KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURANG UNADKAT
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2461/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHREE UMIYAJI CHARITABLE TRUST, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR ROAD, O FF. AAREY COLONY, GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI-400063. PAN: AAITS-5193-C VS. DIT(E), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAURANG UNAD KAT (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAHI S. KUMAR (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 02.06.2015 DATE OF ORDER : 10.06.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF DIT(E), MUMBAI DATED 15.04.2010. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED AGAIN ST THE REFUSAL TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 12A OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). ALONG WITH THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT IN PARA 9 OF THE FORM 36 THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS RECEIVED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.04.2010. AND THE PERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT TH IS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 29.03.2011 WHICH IS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE APPEAL IS ACCOMPANIED WITH AN AFFIDAVIT. 2. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ON RECORD IS FILED IN A CASUAL MANNER. IN FACT THE AFFIDAVIT PLACED ON RECORD IS NO AFFIDAVIT IN THE EYES OF LAW . WE ARE AFRAID AS TO HOW, SUCH AFFIDAVIT WAS ATTESTED BY A NOTARY PUBLIC, THOUGH I T IS FIT CASE FOR INITIATING THE ENQUIRY AGAINST THE PERSON WHO ATTESTED THE SAID AF FIDAVIT, AFFIDAVIT CAN ONLY BE SWORN BY A LIVING PERSON AND NOT BY AN INSTITUTION (TRUST). THE PARA CONTAINING 2 ITA NO. 2461/MUM/11 SHREE UMIYAJI CHARITABLE TRUST. THE NAME AND PARTICULARS OF THE PERSON WHO IS SWEAR ING THE AFFIDAVIT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW; WE, M/S SHREE UMIYAJI CHARITABLE TRUST , HAVING ,RE GISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT VISHWESHWAR NAGAR ROAD, AAREY COLONY, GOREGAO N (E), MUMBAI-400063 DO HEREBY STATE ON SOLEMN AFFIRM AS UNDER:- 3. THE AFFIDAVIT IS FILED IN A CASUAL MANNER. THE AFFI DAVIT FILED ON RECORD HAS NO VALUE AS AFFIDAVIT CAN ONLY BE SWORN BY A LIVING PE RSON. EVEN THE CONTENTS OF ITS DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. WE EXPRESSED OUR ANGUISH FOR TAKING THE PROCEEDING BEF ORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN SUCH A CASUAL APPROACH. 4. FURTHER ON RECORD ,WE FIND WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILE D ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY WITH THE FOLLOW ING REASONS: 5. THE DELAYED OCCURRED DUE TO REASONS THAT, AS AFO RESAID, APPELLANT IS A CHARITABLE TRUST, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, WHEREI N TRUSTEES ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH INCOME TAX AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDI NGS AND BEING CHARITABLE AND NON-COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATION, IT IS B UT NATURAL THAT SUFFICIENT ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO COMPLIAN CE, AS COMPARED TO PRIVATE COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS ORGANIZATION. 6) ALSO, THE PERSON, WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER SAID MAT TER HAS LEFT THE WORK OF THE SAID APPELLANT WITHOUT INFORMING TRUSTEES OF TH E SAID APPELLANT TRUST AND THEREFORE TRUSTEE WAS UNABLE TO KEEP TRACK OF THE M ATTER. 7) HENCE, THE APPELLANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SAID APPLICATION, ALONG WITH APPEAL MEMO . 8) IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION, IT IS KINDLY REQUESTED TO YOUR HONOUR THAT DELAYING IN FILING OF SAID APPEAL BE CO NDONED AND APPEAL BE DECIDE ON MERIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUI TY, AS THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE LIES IN FAVOUR OF THE SAID APPELLANT. (B) REGARDING ORDER OF LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME T AX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, IN REFUSING TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO APPELL ANT U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT):- 9) THE SAID APPELLANT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF ACT ON 15-10-2009. THEREAFTER A NOTICE, DATED 28-01 -2010 HAS BEEN ISSUED, ASKING THE APPELLANT TO FILE CERTAIN DETAILS. HOWEV ER, APPELLANT FAILED TO APPEAR AND ALSO FAILED TO FILE REQUIRED DETAILS BEF ORE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI. HENCE, THE SAID DIR ECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER U/S 12 AA(1)(B)(II) R.W.S. 12A OF ACT, DATED 15-04-2010, REFUSING TO GRANT REG ISTRATION TO APPELLANT. 10) THE SAID NON-COMPLIANCE OCCURRED DUE TO THE FAC TS THAT, AS AFORESAID, APPELLANT IS A CHARITABLE TRUST, A NON-PROFIT ORGAN IZATION, WHEREIN TRUSTEES 3 ITA NO. 2461/MUM/11 SHREE UMIYAJI CHARITABLE TRUST. ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH INCOME TAX AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND BEING CHARITABLE AND NON-COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATION, IT IS B UT NATURAL THAT SUFFICIENT ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO COMPLIAN CE, AS COMPARED TO PRIVATE COMMERCIAL I BUSINESS ORGANIZATION. 11) ALSO, THE PERSON, WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER SAID MA TTER HAS LEFT THE WORK OF THE SAID APPELLANT WITHOUT INFORMING TRUSTEES OF TH E SAID APPELLANT TRUST AND THEREFORE TRUSTEE WAS UNABLE TO KEEP TRACK OF THE M ATTER. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS, APART FROM MAKING GENERAL PLEAS, AGAIN FAILED TO ADVANCE ANY VALID REASON FOR CONDONING THE DELAY PER ITS WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS. THE COMPLIANCE OF LAW IS GENERALLY MADE ONLY THROUGH PROFESSIONALS , SO THAT IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT WHILE ASSESSEE IS IN THE KNOW OF THE PROVISION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT, IT IS NOT SO WITH REGAR D TO THE APPLICABLE PROCEDURE ON DENIAL OF REGISTRATION. THE ENTIRE CONDUCT OF ASSES SEE SMACKS OF LACHES. 6. SINCE THE AFFIDAVIT IS NOT VALID AFFIDAVIT NOR IT DISCLOSE ANY REASON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY RESULTANTLY THE APPLICATION FO R CONDONING THE DELAY IS DISMISSED, SO DISCUSSION ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE I S ACADEMIC. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 10/06/2016 S.K.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) (/ THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. !'# /GUARD FILE. $ //TRUE COPY/