Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik V. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

ITA 304/PUN/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University appealing against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune, which rejected their application for registration under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed significantly late, and the tribunal had to first decide on the condonation of delay. The assessee argued that the delay was due to internal processes and the belief that they were eligible for exemption under a different section (10(23C)(iiia)). However, the tribunal found these reasons insufficient to justify the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134356 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2020
• Other Referred Cases: P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State Of Kerala & Anr, M/s. Malnad Organics Pvt. Ltd vs ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.304/PUN/2020 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Administrative Block Dnyangangotri, Near Gangapur Dam Goverdhan, Nashik – 422 222. PAN: AAALY 0016 C Vs The Pr.CIT(Exemptions), Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Sharad Shah – AR Revenue by Shri Sardar Singh Meena - DR Date of hearing 19/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 21/04/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Pune dated 27.09.2017 under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.1 The Ld. CIT Exemption erred in rejecting registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act. 1.2 The Ld. CIT exemption erred in rejecting the application ITA No.304/PUN/2020 Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University [A] 2 made for granting registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) solely on the ground that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) 2. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the grounds of appeal at any time before or after the course of the case.” Submission of ld.Departmental Representative : 2. The ld.DR for the Revenue has submitted that there is a massive delay in filing appeal. Therefore, the question of condonation needs to be decided first. The ld.DR strongly pleaded that there are no sufficient reasons for condonation. Submission of ld.Authorised Representative on Delay : 3. The ld.AR for the Assessee has admitted that there is a delay of more than 800 days in filing appeal by the assessee. The ld.AR submitted that assessee has filed an affidavit. The ld.AR read out the affidavit. Findings and Analysis: 4. In this case the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (exemption) dated 27/09/2017 was admittedly served on the Appellant Assessee on 28/09/2017. The Appellant assessee in Appeal Form number 36 has mentioned date of service of the order as 28/09/2017. The appeal form number 36 is dated 02/03/2020 and received by the ITAT Pune on 03/03/2020. As per Section 253(3) of ITA No.304/PUN/2020 Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University [A] 3 the Act, the time limit to file appeal is 60 days. Thus, the Delay in filling appeal is of 887 days. The Appellant Assessee has filed an affidavit signed by Finance Officer of the appellant. The relevant part of the said affidavit is reproduced here as under : 5. On perusal of the Affidavit it is observed that main contention of the assessee is that since assessee was eligible for Exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiia), assessee did not prefer appeal against the Rejection of Assessee’s Application u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The Section 10(23C)(iiia) and 10(23C)(vi) operate in different conditions. There is a massive delay of more than 2 years in filling appeal. Assessee has given the reason that it did not prefer appeal because it was eligible for exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiia). This is not valid and sufficient reason for such a massive delay of more than 2 years. The assessee has also pleaded that its internal process took some time. The assessee has not explained how the delay was caused due to the internal process of decision making. It’s a vague and bald statement. Again, this does not explain the inordinate delay of 887 days in filling an appeal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee ITA No.304/PUN/2020 Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University [A] 4 has failed to demonstrate that there was valid and sufficient cause for such inordinate delay of 887 days. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September, 1997 as under : Quote,“ This can hardly be said to be a reasonable, satisfactory or even a proper explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the reply filed to the application seeking condonation of delay by the appellant in the High Court, it is asserted that after the judgment and decree was pronounced by the learned Sub Judge, Kollam on 30.10.1993, the scope for filing of the appeal was examined by the District Government Pleader, Special Law Officer, Law Secretary and the Advocate General and in accordance with their opinion, it was decided that there was no scope for filing the appeal but later on, despite the opinion referred to above, the appeal was filed as late as on 8.1.1996 without disclosing why it was being filed. The High Court does not appear to have examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less a reasonable or satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent State for condonation of the inordinate delay of565 days. Law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation one quitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was, thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set ITA No.304/PUN/2020 Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University [A] 5 aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” Unquote. 7. The ITAT in the case of M/s. Malnad Organics Pvt. Ltd vs ITO in ITA 63/Bang/2022held as under : Quote, “In our opinion, the assessee not at all explained the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient reasons. The assessee though stated in his affidavit that it was misplaced in its hand and not mentioned the date it has actually been received by assessee and who is handling this case. Further, it was stated that assessee was sick during the period. However, there was no evidence in the form of medical certificate to prove the sickness of the assessee, the affidavit filed by the assessee is too general in specifying the valid reasons for which no credits could be given and this is only self- serving document. Further, in this case, there was inordinate delay in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of few days, whereas in the normal case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor, so the case calls for a more conscious approach, in the later case, no such consideration may arise and such a case deserve a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The court has to exercise the distinction on the facts of each case, keeping in mind that in considering the expression “sufficient cause”, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. ITA No.304/PUN/2020 Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University [A] 6 4.1 The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the dictum: vigilantibusnondormientibus jura subveniunt. 4.2 The delay cannot be condoned simply because the appellant’s case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence, whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which by due care and attention, could have been avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision where no negligence, or inaction, or want of bonafides can be imputed to the appellant, a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands. 4.3 In the present case, the assessee explained the delay in its affidavit in a very general and casual manner without explaining any supporting documents to establish assessee’s case. It was only stated in his affidavit that Ld. CIT(A)’s order was misplaced, thereafter steps were taken for the preparation of appeal, consequently, delay was caused. This clearly shows that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of assessee. Assessee could have very well awarded the delay by exercise of due care and responsibility. In our opinion, there exists no sufficient and good reason for the delay of such inordinate delay as pointed out in the earlier part of this order. Accordingly, delay is not ITA No.304/PUN/2020 Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University [A] 7 condoned. The delay is unadmitted and hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine.”Unquote. 8. Thus, in this case the appellant failed to explain the inordinate delay in filling of appeal. The appellant has not stated that the reasons were beyond his control which resulted in the delay. Appellant has not demonstrated any valid and sufficient cause. Therefore, the Delay in filling the appeal is not condoned. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21 st April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 21 st April, 2023/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.