Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2641 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
23-11-2010
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
16-11-2010
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
03-05-2010
Judgement Text
ITA 273/VIZ/2010 THE KAKINADA PORT WORKERS POOL, KAK INADA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 273 /VIZAG/ 20 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A. M/S. THE KAKINADA PO RT WORKERS POOL KAKINADA CIT RAJAHMUNDRY (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABTT 1469M APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.S.S. PRASAD, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, DR ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT DENYING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA W.E.F. DATE OF FIRST APPLICATION FILED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION. THIS APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY 842 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THEY RECEIVED THE ORDER FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FROM THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY W.E.F. 11.6.2007. THEY WERE IN GOOD FAITH THAT THE EARLIER APPLICATION FOR GR ANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A DATED 19.9.2005 SINCE HAS NOT BEEN REFUSED THE TRUST WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION W.E.F 22.8.2005 I.E. THE DATE OF INCEPTION AND ACCORDINGLY THEY CONTESTED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT O N RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEY APPR O ACHED THEIR ADVOCATE AND HE ADVISED THEM TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE CIT INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE DELAY WAS ALSO CAUSED IN APPROACHING THE ADVOCATE AT HYDERABAD. DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING, HE HAS ALSO FILED AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL EMANATED FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF APPLICATION AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL WAS CAUSED, THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED AND APPEAL MAY BE ADMITTED FOR HEARING. ITA 273/VIZ/2010 THE KAKINADA PORT WORKERS POOL, KAKINADA 2 2. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT HAS PASSED AN ORDER IN 2007 GRANTING A REGISTRATION W.E.F. 11.6.2007. AFTER THIS REGISTRATION THEY CONTESTED THEIR MATTER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF DEEMED REGISTRATION ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER APPLICATIO N SUBMITTED ON 23.9.2005. THE MATTER WAS TRAVELED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DRAW ANY PRESUMPTION ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN FACTS AND THAT TOO IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC ORDER OF CIT WITH REGARD TO THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PASSED ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009. WHEREAS, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED ON 7.7.2010. IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT RIGHT COURSE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS EITHER TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF THE CIT GRANTING REGISTRATION W.E.F. 11.6.2007 OR TO SEEK A RECTIFICATION FROM THE CIT ITSELF. DESPITE ALL THESE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE A NECESSARY STEPS AND HE HAS APPROACHED T O THE TRIBUNAL BY FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT ON 7.7.2010. THEREFORE, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IS INTENTIONAL AND CANNOT BE CONDONED. 3 . HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT GRANTING REGISTRATION W.E.F. 11.6.2007 WAS PASSED ON 13.11.2007. IT IS NOT A CASE THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ASSISTED BY THE PROFESSIONAL. HE WAS ALL THE TIME ASSISTED BY THE WELL TRAINED PROFESSIONAL AND IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT, HE COULD HAVE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DATE FROM WHICH THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A IS EFFECTED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN CLAIMING A BE NEFIT OF EXEMPTION ON THE BASIS OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. MORE OVER THIS IMPORTANT FACT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN THEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO COME TO THE TRIBUNAL BY FILIN G AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT . THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED ITS ARGUMENT OF DEEMED REGISTRATION UPTO THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL HAS FINALLY REJECTED ITS CONTENTIONS ITA 273/VIZ/2010 THE KAKINADA PORT WORKERS POOL, KAKINADA 3 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10.12.2009. BY THIS ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS SPE CIFICALLY H E LD THAT TH E ARGUMENT OF THE DEEMED REGISTRATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE RIGHT COURSE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEES WAS EITHER TO ASK FOR RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT OR TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. DESPITE ALL THESE C LEAR FINDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF LIMITATION. HE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER A PERIOD OF 7 MONTHS. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DELAY WAS CAUSED BEYOND HIS CONTROL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SINCE THE APPEAL IS NOT PREFERRED WITHIN A PERIOD OF LIMITATION IT IS BARRED BY TIME AND WE DISMISS THE SAME BEING NOT ADMITTED. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.11 .20 10 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 23 RD NOVEMBER , 20 10 COPY TO 1 THE KAKINADA PORT WORKERS POOL, C/O G.V.S.S. PRASAD, CHARTERED AC COUNTANT, FLAT NO.6, 5 TH FLOOR, MADHURI MANOR APARTMENTS, OPP. ANDHRA BANK, LAWSONS BAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 017. 2 CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 THE CIT (A) , 4 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIO R PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
Mehul