Athena Educational Trust, Chandigarh V. CIT I, Chandigarh

ITA 328/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68505 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reason to believe
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACOCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 328/CHD/2012 U/S 12AA (1)(B)(II) ATHENA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, VS THE CIT I, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AACTA9606Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JYOTI KUMARI DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT-I, CHANDIGARH DATED 21.7.2011 CHALLENGING THE ORDER U/ S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FO R REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IN THE OFFICE OF CIT-I CHANDIGARH ON 25.1.2011. THE A SSESSEE TRUST WAS CREATED ON 19.11.2009 BUT THE RELEVANT INCOME AND EXPENDITUR E ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET ETC. FOR THE PERIOD WERE NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE APPLIC ATION FOR REGISTRATION. THE LD. CIT FIXED THE CASE FOR HEARING ASKING THE DETAILS OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND THE DETAIL OF PROVISIONAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. P ART COMPLIANCE WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE 07 CLA RIFICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE CASE WAS FIXED FO R HEARING ON 20.7.2011 BUT 2 ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE THE L D. CIT AND THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND CLARIFICATIONS WERE NOT FILED, THEREFOR E, LD. CIT WAS UNABLE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEES TRUST. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND MATERIALS, L D. CIT REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL PAPERS IN FORM NO. 36 MENTIONED THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF IMPUGNED ORDER AS 21.7.2011, HOW EVER, THE APPEAL IS FILED IT THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 13.3.2012. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICE, THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 176 DAYS. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY STATING THEREIN THAT AFTER REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.7.2011, THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FILED FRESH APP LICATION BEFORE THE CIT AND WAS ADVISED THAT NO APPEAL IS TO BE FILED BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. ON THE BASIS OF THE FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION DATED 4.8.20 11, THE LD. CIT-I CHANDIGARH GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.2.2012. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT DELA Y IN FILING THE APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE TRUSTEE INDERMEET B AINS HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. 5. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. 6. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 VIDE ORDER DA TED 10.2.2012, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE NEVER WANTED TO FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINS T THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.7.2011, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE IS AFTER THOUGHT AND DELAY MAY NOT BE CONDONED. 3 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE CIRC UMSTANCES LEADING TO DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RE GISTRATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE OF CONDONAT ION OF DELAY. IN THE CASE OF HIND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND ORS. 118 ITR 873 (CAL), THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A TRIBUNAL CAN CONDON E THE DELAY IF THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL. IN CASE OF CIT V RAM MOHAN KALRA 257 ITR 773, T HE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SPELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER TO CONDONE, THE DELAY AS WELL AS, SUCH DELAY CAN ONLY BE CONDONED FOR SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASONS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PROVISIONS RELATING T O THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMITATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOR AND EFF ECTIVE CONSEQUENCES. IN THIS CASE, THE DELAY OF FILING THE APPEAL LATE FOR ONLY A FEW DAYS WAS TO CONDONED. IN CASE OF CIT VS. TAGGAS INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT LTD., 80 IT D 21 (CAL.) , ITAT CALCUTTA BENCH DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY 13 DAYS BECAUSE THE DELAY WAS NOT DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLE AR THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELA TEDLY. THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION WAS REJECTED VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.7.2011 BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS RAISE D BY THE LD. CIT FOR CONSIDERATION OF REGISTRATION APPLICATION. IT WOU LD SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO CONSIDER THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FAVORABLY. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS, THEREFORE, ADVISED THE ASSESSEE NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND TO FILE FRESH APPLICATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN F ILING ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DUE TO THIS REASON ONLY THE FRES H APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS FILED ON 4.8.2011 FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION BEC AUSE EARLIER THE REQUIREMENTS 4 OF LAW WERE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, T HERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS ANY REASONABLE OR SUFFICIENT CAUS E FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. MERELY BECAUSE THE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTE D FROM THE LATE DATE BY THE LD. CIT IS NO GROUND TO FILE THE APPEAL BELATEDLY AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE DELAY IS NOT OF A FEW DA YS BUT OF 176 DAYS, BESIDES THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO VALID EXPLANATION / REASON F OR DELAY. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE IF THERE WAS ANY SUFFICIENT CAS E FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THUS, RELYING ON THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE FAILED THE EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO SUFFICIEN T CASE, THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRE D. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-09.2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER, (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) ITAT, CHANDIGARH