M/S. THE BOMBAY DIAMOND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION RELIEF FUND, MUMBAI V. THE DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 343/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7628 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN C BHARAT
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 12A; 12; 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, (JM) AND SHRI B. RAMAKO TAIAH ,(AM) ITA NO.343/MUM/2008 THE BOMBAY DIAMOND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION RELIEF FUND 3, DHANJI STREET MUMBAI-400 003. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AAATT 0587 F) VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEM.) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL MUMBAI-400 012. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : MR. ARUN C. BHARAT O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 5.11.2007 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI U/S.12AA(1)(B)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE T RUST CONSTITUTED UNDER MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION DATED 12.9. 1968 FILED ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 2 AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A(A) OF THE ACT I N FORM NO.10A ON 30.5.2007 ALONGWITH PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE DIT(E) TO FILE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS LIKE PAN CARD OF THE TRUST/TRUSTEES, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS, ORIGINAL TRUST DEE D ETC. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO FILE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION GRA NTED EARLIER U/S.12A. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL A ND THE REASONABLENESS OF THE DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION U/S.1 0A, THE DIT(E) GRANTED REGISTRATION W.E.F. 1.4.2007 AS AGAINST APPLI ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 12.9.1968. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE DIT(E) THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-MUMBAI ERRED :- 1. IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S.12AA WHEREIN HE DID NOT GRA NT THE APPELLANT TRUST A REGISTRATION U/S.12A FROM 12. 9.1968 WHICH WAS THE DATE OF FORMATION OF THE TRUST AND IN GRANTING REGISTRATION ONLY FROM 1.4.2007. 2. IN NOT APPRECIATING CORRECTLY THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY APPELLANT TRUST ON 28 TH MAY 2007. 3. IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS EV EN REGISTERED Y/S.80G-THE LAST SUCH RENEWAL BEING GRAN TED IN MARCH 2007 AND THAT IT WAS REGULARLY BEING ASSESSED AS A TRUST AND WAS BEING GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND SECTION 12. 4. IN NOT USING THE POWERS GIVEN TO HIM U/S.12A TO CON DONE THE DELAY AND TO GRANT A REGISTRATION ONLY FROM 1.4 .2007. 5. IN NOT APPRECIATING THE APPELLANT TRUSTS SUBMISSIO N THAT IT WAS PROBABLY REGISTERED EARLIER AND IN NOT VERIFYIN G THE RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. 6. IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TRUST TO NOT SEEK A REGI STRATION. ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 3 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UND ER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF ITS FORMATION. SECTION 12A PROVIDES THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL NOT APPLY TO INCOME OF ANY TRUST UNLESS THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF INCOME HAS MADE AN APPLICA TION FOR REGISTRATION. THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN AL L THROUGH OUT GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. IN FACT, ITS ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1985-86, 1986-87 AND 1 989- 90 HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE ACT. UNLESS THE APPELLANT HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRA TION U/S.12A OF THE ACT THERE WAS NO QUESTION FOR GRANTING EXEMPTION U NDER SECTION 11 AND 12. THE FACT THAT IT WAS REGISTERED U/S.12A IS AL SO SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT IT HAD BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.80G(5) OF THE ACT WHERE THE PRECONDITION IN 80G(5)(I) IS THAT IF THE TRUST DE RIVES ANY INCOME, THE INCOME SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO INCLUSION IN TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO SATISFIED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS REGISTERED U/S.12A AND HENCE, QUALI FIED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT TRUST. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT COPY OF R EGISTRATION U/S.12A IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE TIME BEING ON ACCOUNT OF THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING THE AFFAIRS OF THE TRUST AT TH E RELEVANT POINT OF TIME HAVE MOVED OUT OR PASSED AWAY. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN ANY ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 4 EVENT, ASSUMING THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO RECORDS OF TH E REGISTRATION HAVING BEEN GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT U/ S.12A THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT SUCH REGISTRATION HAD BE EN GRANTED AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE APPELLANT NOT TO HAVE MADE AN APPLICATION AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. THEREFORE , ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT A FRESH REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED TO BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE DATE OF ITS FORMATION THE DELAY I N FILING THE APPLICATION IS ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE REASONS AND THE SAME MAY BE CONDONED AND THE DIT(E) MAY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW REGI STRATION FROM ITS FORMATION OR IN ANY CASE W.E.F. 1.4.1973. HE ALSO PLACE D ON RECORD THE COPY OF CERTIFICATES ISSUED U/S.80G DATED 7.3.2007 AND 31. 8.1994 BY THE DIT(E); COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S.143(3) FOR ASSESSMEN T YEARS 1985-86, 1986-87; AND 1989-90; LETTER DATED 11 .10.2007 WITH MARKINGS OF ATTENDANCE BY A.R. ON 2.11.2007 APPEARIN G AT PAGE 1 TO 8 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED IN T HE CASE OF CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF GRACE VS. CIT-III, THANE (2009) 34 SOT 315(MUM.) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL CONDONED THE DELAY AN D GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE TRUST. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE DIT(E). 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIN D THAT THERE IS NO ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 5 DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS CONSTITUTED BY A MEMORA NDUM OF ASSOCIATION DATED 12.9.1968 AND THE TRUST WAS REGISTERED UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1950 BY THE DY. CHARITY CO MMISSIONER ON 26.9.1968. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 1985-86, 1986-87 AND 1989-90 THE AO UNDER SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENTS MADE U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT VIDE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS APPEARING AT PAGE-3 TO 7 O F THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE TRUST WA S GRANTED APPROVAL U/S.80G FROM 1.4.94(ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96) TO 31.3.1997 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98) VIDE ORDER DATED 3 1.8.94 PASSED BY DIT(E) BOMBAY. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AP PROVAL U/S.80G WAS AGAIN GRANTED FROM 1.4.2006 TO 31.3.2009 VIDE CER TIFICATE DATED 7.3.2007 ISSUED BY DIT(E) MUMBAI. WE FURTHER FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 28.5.2007 HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY VIDE PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER : WE HAVE BEEN FILING TAX RETURNS REGULARLY AS A RE LIGIOUS TRUST AND WE HAVE BEEN CLAIMING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 11 AND 12 TO OUR INCOME. WE HAVE ACCORDINGL Y BEEN ASSESSED AS WELL SINCE THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. A LOT OF EARLIER RECORDS OF THE TRUST ARE NOT AVAIL ABLE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE SOME OF THE TRUSTEES WHO WERE HANDLING AFFAIRS IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE MOVED O R PASSED AWAY. AS A RESULT WE ARE UNABLE TO TRACE A COPY OF THE REGISTRATION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED U/S.12A TO THE TRUST WHEN IT WAS FORMED. WE, THEREFORE, MAKE HEREWITH A FRESH APPLICATION FO R REGISTRATION U/S.12A AND WE REQUEST THAT EITHER A C OPY OF THE EARLIER ORDER BE GIVEN TO US OR A REGISTRATION BE GIVEN ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 6 TO THE TRUST WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF FORMATION . WE ASSURE TO THE(SIC) REVENUE THAT THERE WAS NO INTENT ION TO NOT MAKE AN APPLICATION EARLIER AND IN CASE A FRESH REGISTRATION IS GIVEN THEN THE DELAY IN MAKING THE APPLICATION MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED. WE REITERATE T HIS IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT AND THAT THE DELAY IS NOT INTENTIONAL AND THAT HENCE THE POWERS AVAILABLE TO YOUR LEARNED SELF U/S.12A BE KINDLY EXERCISED AND THE D ELAY BE CONDONED AND REGISTRATION BE GRANTED FOR WHICH THE TRUSTEES SHALL BE OBLIGED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DIT(E) INSPITE OF THE ABO VE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY ON THE GROU ND THAT NO SPECIFIC REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR LATE FIL ING OF THE APPLICATION U/S.12A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE GRANTED REG ISTRATION U/S.12AA(1)(B)(I) W.E.F. 1.4.2007 BY THE SAME ORDER. 7. IN THE CASE OF CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF GRACE (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD: 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPU TE THAT THE TRUST WAS CONSTITUTED ON 6.1.1955, WHICH WAS ALSO REGISTERED AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VIDE CERTIF ICATE DATED 20.6.1955 ISSUED BY THE DY. CHARITY COMMISSIO NER, GREATER BOMBAY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPO SES. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE TRUST HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS. NIL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 U/S. 144 OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.1996, AT RS. NIL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-200 0, VIDE INTIMATION U/S. 143(1)(A) DATED NIL AND AT RS. NIL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.2.2 004 PASSED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT. WE, FURTHER, FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NEWSP APER NAMELY TIMES OF INDIA, DATED MAY 18, 2007, WHEREIN IT WAS PUBLISHED THAT IF YOU HAVE NOT FILED YOUR APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF YO UR ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 7 CREATION OR ESTABLISHMENT AND WANT TO AVAIL OF EXE MPTION FOR EARLIER YEARS, YOU MAY FILE SUCH APPLICATION BE FORE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, FILED AN APPLICATION ON 21.5.2 007 FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER LETTER DATED 12.10.2007 REQUEST ING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT AFTER EXAMI NING THE MATTER WHILE REJECTING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AS UNSATISFACTORY EXPLANATION GRANTED REGISTRATION W .E.F. 1.4.2007, I.E. FROM THE FIRST DAY OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS MADE. HERE IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE NOTE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS O F SEC.12A OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDE THAT ALL CHARITABL E AND RELIGIOUS TRUSTS, WHICH DESIRE TO AVAIL OF THE BENE FIT OF TAX EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT ARE INTERALIA REQUIRED TO FILE U/S. 12A AN APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBE FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST BEFORE THE CIT BY 1 ST JULY, 1973 OR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF CREATION O F THE TRUST, WHICHEVER IS LATER. VIDE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.115 DATED 30.6.1973, THE TIME FOR FILING OF SUCH APPLIC ATION HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL 15.8.1973 OR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST WHICHEVER IS LATER. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE AMENDMENT OF THE PROVISO BELO W CLAUSE (A) OF SEC.12A BY THE FINANCE(NO.2) ACT, 199 1 W.E.F. 1.10.1991 ENABLES THE COMMISSIONER TO CONDON E THE DELAY AND WHERE THE DELAY IS CONDONED REGISTRAT ION HAS EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS APPLICA TION DATED 12.10.2007 WHILE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR D ELAY THAT HE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT SINCE T HE TRUST IS REGISTERED IN THE YEAR 1955 HIS PREDECESSOR MU ST HAVE COMPLIED WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, HA S ALSO EXPLAINED THE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN SUBMITTING T HE APPLICATION WITHIN TIME. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT REJEC TED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION HOLDING UNSATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR SUBMISSION OF DELAY. IN OUR VIEW THE REJECTION OF THE REASONS OF DELAY AS UNSATISFACTO RY EXPLANATION IS NOT A REASONED ORDER. IT WAS NECE SSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO ADMINISTRATE AS TO WHY THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT SATISFAC TORY. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ENTITLEMENT TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A IS CO NCERNED THE SAME HAS BEEN GRANTED THOUGH WITH PROSPECTIVE E FFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2007. 8. IN SOCIETY OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE VS. UNION OF I NDIA & ANOTHER (1999) 235 ITR 339 (M.P) IT HAS BEEN OBSE RVED (PAGE 342):- ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 8 THE EXPRESSION BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD IN PROVISO(I) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 12A REQUIRES SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS WHICH PREVENTED THE PERSON F ROM MAKING THE APPLICATION WITHIN ONE YEAR AS REQUIRED AND NOT THE REASONS FOR THE PERIOD BEYOND THE PRESCRIBE D PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. WHAT THE AUTHORITY HAS TO SEE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT REASONS WHICH PREVENTED THE PERSON FROM MAKING THE APPLICATION WI THIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD AND NOT THE TOTAL PERIOD AFTE R WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS MADE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO EXAMINE WHETHER SUFFICIENT REASONS EXISTED FOR NOT MAKING T HE APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED PRO FORMA WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND NOT WITH REFERENC E TO THE TOTAL PERIOD THAT ELAPSED BEFORE MAKING THE APPLICATION. IT IS, THUS, CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS NOT APPROACHED THE MATTER FROM ITS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS RECORDED THAT THE REASONS FURNISHED WERE NOT SATISFACTORY. NOT SATISFACTORY IS A CONCLUSION AND CANNOT BE A REASO N BY ITSELF AND IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER TO HAVE GIVEN REASONS WHY THE EXPLANATION FOR NOT MAKING THE APPLICATION IN TIME WAS NOT SATISFACTORY . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ENTITLEMENT TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A IS CONCERNED THE SAME HAS BEEN GRANTED THOUGH WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1993. THE ELIGIBI LITY OF THE PETITIONER HAVING THUS BEEN CONCLUDED, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT COGENT REASONS WERE ASSIGNED TO INDI CATE WHY THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER WERE NO T SATISFACTORY. 9. IN SURYA GENERAL TRADERS VS. CTO (2003) 133 STC 388,389 IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND HELD THAT : WHEN AN APPELLANT HAS A GOOD CASE ON MERITS, DEFEAT OF HIS CLAIM ON TECHNICAL PLEA OF LIMITATION WOULD ULTIMATELY LEAD TO INJUSTICE. STATE SHOULD NOT STA ND BY A TECHNICAL PLEA OF LIMITATION OF THE CITIZENS CASE WAS OTHERWISE MERITORIOUS 10. IN KADUR VIDHYA PRATISHTANA V. CIT (2007) 15 SO T 75(BANG.), THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIO US DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION IN SOCIETY OF DIVI NE PROVIDENCE (SUPRA), MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO . LTD. V. STATE OF UP(1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) AND COLLECTOR , LAND ACQUISITION V. MST. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471( SC) HAS HELD AS UNDER : ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 9 17. THE SOCIETY RECEIVES VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE PERSONS FOR A CHARITABLE CAUSE. THE PAYME NTS ARE NOT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY FOR DIVERTING TOWAR DS PAYMENT OF TAXES. THE SPIRIT WITH WHICH THE PAYMEN TS ARE MADE ARE ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AND IF THERE IS A BONA FIDE REASON FOR FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REG ISTRATION BELATEDLY THEN THE DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED SO THAT THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IS ACHIEVED. IF THE SOCIETY KNOWINGLY IGNORES THE PROV ISIONS OF LAW THEN NECESSARILY IT HAS TO BEAR THE BURDEN. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AS A MATTE R OF FACT THAT THE TRUSTEES OR THE PERSONS, WHO ARE MANA GING THE AFFAIRS OF THE SOCIETY WERE AWARE OF FILING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12A. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES WE FEEL THAT THE LD. CIT SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE D ELAY. ACCORDINGLY, WE FEEL THAT IT IS A FIT CASE WHERE TH E DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED AND PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AN D 12 SHOULD NOT BE MADE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE SOCIETY FROM ITS INCEPTION 11. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS TO TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT S INCE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND GENUINENESS OF ITS ACTIVIT Y THAT IT IS FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES ARE NOT IN DOUBT INASMUCH AS THE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2007 AND THE REASO NS FOR DELAY FOR FILING OF THE APPLICATION WERE NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE OR UNTRUE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND REGISTRA TION IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE W.E.F. 1.7.1973. ACCORDINGL Y, THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECO RD BY THE REVENUE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST ARE NOT IN DOUBT IN AS MUCH AS THE RENEWAL OF APPROVAL U/S.80G HAS BEEN GRANTED W .E.F. 1.4.2006 AND THE REGISTRATION HAS ALSO BEEN GRANTED W.E.F.1.4.2 007, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION HOLD THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A WITHIN TIME AND HENCE WE CONDONE THE SAME AND G RANT THE ITA NO.343/M/08 A.Y. 10 REGISTRATION W.E.F 1.4.1973 AS STATED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8.3.2010. SD/- SD/- ( B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 8.3.2010. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 2.3.10 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3.3.10 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 8.3.10 SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 9.3.10 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER