M/s. J&K Multipurpose Public, Kashmir V. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kashmir

ITA 282/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73176 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 282(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NILL PAN: AAAAJ3618C J & K MULTIPURPOSE PUBLIC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME MISSIONARY EDUCATION SOCIETY TAX, JAMMU (J&K) NEWA PULWAMA KASHMIR (J&K), KASHMIR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SH. UPENDER BHAT, CA DEPARTMENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 08.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.01.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.09.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (J&K), JAMMU, UNDER SECTION 12AA(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. REG:- DENIAL OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(B)(II) BY CIT (J&K) A) THAT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN REFUSING THE SOCIETY U/S 12AA(B)(II) O F THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2 I.T.A. NO. 282(ASR)/2013 B) IN VIEW OF THE MATTER & IN ANY CASE THE ACTION OF L D. CIT IN REFUSING THE SOCIETY U/S 12AA(B)(II) OF THE I.T. AC T IS BAD IN LAW, UNJUSTIFIED & AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUST ICE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE APPLICANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD; TO M ODIFY; TO AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY, THE REGISTRY FOUND THA T THERE IS A DELAY OF 493 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME; THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 486 DAYS (NOT 493 DAYS). TH E CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IT IS HONORABLY SUBMITTED THAT IS THE UNDERSIGNED COULD NOT FILE THE APPLICATION OF APPEAL U/S 253 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BEFORE YOUR HONOUR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED TIME LIMIT OF 60 DAYS OF TH E SERVICE OF THE NOTICE TILL THIS DATE RESULTING IN DELAY OF 486 DAYS IN FI LING THE APPEAL. IT IS NOW HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY HAS BEEN CAUSED DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPOINTED A AUDITOR/CONSULTAN T NAMELY M/S JOHN & CO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WHO WAS NOT AN AUTHORIZED/REGISTERED FIRM OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND DID NOT ADVISE THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROVISION OF INCOME T AX ACT. THE FACT THAT THE COUNSEL IS NOT A QUALIFIED AND REGISTERED PERSON WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE SON OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SOCIETY GOT SERIOUSLY ILL & WAS FIRST TREATED AT SRINAGAR & THEN SHIFTED TO DELHI FOR TRE ATMENT DURING THE PERIOD RESULTING IN DELAY BY THE CHAIRMAN TO ATTEND TO THE MATTERS OF THE SOCIETY. 3. THAT THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE SOCIETY HAD TO AC COMPANY HIS MOTHER FOR HAJ AND ACCORDINGLY WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR OVER TWO MONTHS THUS RESULTING IN HIS NOT ATTENDING TO SOCIETY MATT ERS. 3 I.T.A. NO. 282(ASR)/2013 4. THAT DUE TO LIMITED PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT AND HAVING APPOINTED A COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CASE TH E ASSESSEE WAS STILL UNDER AN IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE FILED AT LATER STAGE. THAT DUE TO ABOVE QUOTED REASONS THE SOCIETY COULD NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. THAT NOW APPEALS FOR THE SAME H AS BEEN FILED BEFORE YOUR. IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES THERE HAS BEEN A DEL AY OF 486 DAYS FROM THE LAST DATE OF FILING OF THE SAID APPEAL WHI CH FELL ON 23 RD DECEMBER, 2011. THE ORDERS WERE RECEIVED ON 24.10.2 011. YOUR PETITIONER STATES AND SUBMITS THAT THE SAID DE LAY ON THE PART OF YOUR PETITIONER TO FILE THE APPEAL WAS NEITHER DELI BERATE NOR WILLFUL AND SINCE THERE IS A DELAY ON THE PART OF YOUR PETI TIONER TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN TIME, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THAT THE UNDERSIGNED SUBMITS THAT UNLESS THE DELAY IS CONDONED AS PRAYED FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS A CHARITABLE TRUST WORKING IN HOSTILE SITUATIONS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE LOSS. THE APPLICATION IS MADE BONA FIDE AND IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE BENCH HAS GIVEN OPPO RTUNITY TO LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REA SON FOR THE DELAY OF 493 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND HE DREW OUR A TTENTION TOWARDS THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID APPL ICATION. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, N AMELY, PHOTOSTAT COPY OF CASE SHEET OF DEPT. OF SURGERY, DATED 31.07 .2012 (NOT LEGIBLE); DISCHARGE BOOK OF GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, SRINAGAR, IN WHICH DATE OF 4 I.T.A. NO. 282(ASR)/2013 ADMISSION AND DATE OF DISCHARGE OF PATIENT, NAMELY, NASEER AHMAD WANI, ARE 31.07.2012 & 06.08.2012 RESPECTIVELY; REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF PATIENT, DATED AUGUST 8, 2012 PERFORMED AT INDRAPRA STHA APOLLO; RADIOLOGY REPORT DATED 7 TH AUGUST, 2012 OF MR. NASEER AHMAD WANI; DISCHARGE SUMMARY, IN WHICH DATE OF ADMISSION AND D ATE OF DISCHARGE OF THE PATIENT ARE 6 TH AUGUST, 2012 & 11 TH AUGUST, 2012 RESPECTIVELY; DOCTORS PRESCRIPTION OF MR. NASEER AHMAD WANI, DAT ED 14 TH AUGUST, 2012. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTE D THAT THERE ARE FOUR OR FIVE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WORKING WITH TH E ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE IS ACTIVE IN WORKING. HE REQUESTED THAT TH E DELAY IN DISPUTE MAY BE CONDONED. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR CONTROVERTED THE ARG UMENT ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ST ATED THAT THE HUGE DELAY OF 493 DAYS CAUSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT CONDONABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A NY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. 5 I.T.A. NO. 282(ASR)/2013 6. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT S UFFICIENT TO CONDONE SUCH A HUGE DELAY OF 493 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BECAUSE LEARNED CIT(J&K), JAMMU, HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED OR DER ON 28.09.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT A PPEAL ON 29.04.2013 WHICH WAS TO BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, THERE IS DELAY OF 493 DA YS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED S UFFICIENT REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE I MPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.09.2011 WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. AS PER THE EVIDENCE ATTACHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FIRST TREATMENT STARTS FROM 31.07 .2012 AND CONTINUED UPTO 06.08.2012, SECOND TREATMENT CONTINUED UPTO 11 .10.2012 AND LAST TREATMENT STARTS FROM 21.09.2012 AND CONTINUED UPTO 23.09.2012, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED WITH THE APPLICATION OF C ONDONATION OF DELAY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONDONE SUCH A HUGE DELAY OF 493 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, THEREFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO COND ONE THE DELAY IN DISPUTE. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL ED TO ESTABLISH THE 6 I.T.A. NO. 282(ASR)/2013 REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY OF 493 DAYS, WHICH OCCUR RED IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH JANUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9 TH JANUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: J & K MULTIPURPOSE PUBLIC MISSIONARY EDUCATION SOCIETY NEWA PULWAMA KASHMIR (J&K), KASHMIR 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU (J&K) 3. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.