Organisation for the Rural Women & Youth Development, Mayurbhanj V. CIT, Cuttack

ITA 39/CTK/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0789 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JENA
• Assessee Lawyers: RURAL WELFARE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , S HRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 39/CTK/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR ORGANISATION FOR THE RURAL WELFARE AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, AT/P.O. HAREKRIUSHNAPUR, VIA: NALAGAJA, DIST.MAYURBHANJ, ORISSA PAN : AAARO 0800 D - - - VERSUS - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CUTTACK. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI S.K.JENA, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI S.K.DASH, DR / ORDER . . . , , SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER . THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT DT.5.12.2006 GIVING REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 TO THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY W.E.F. 1. 4.2006. 2. BOTH PARTIES WERE HEARD REGARDING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITS LEGAL IMPLICATION. 3. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FOUND THAT T HE UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATING TO THE APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE I.T.ACT. IT WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE LEARNED CIT BY ORDER DT.5/11/12/2006 AND SERVED THE ORDER ON THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A.NO. 39/CTK/2010 2 ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNED CIT WHILE ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE NOTED THE EFFECTIVE DATE AS 1.4.2006, WHEREAS THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE TO GRANT CERTIFICATE FROM THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE ASSESSEE - TRUST. WHILE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS DELAY AS THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, TO WHOM THE MATTER WAS ENTRUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAME SICK DUE TO BLOOD CANCER AND ULTIMATE PASSED AWAY AFTER PROLONGED ILLNESS AND DURING SUCH ILLNESS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSI TION TO CONSULT HIM AS HE WAS UNDER INTENSIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT WHICH RESULTED IN DISLOCATION OF THE TAX COMPLIANCE WITH THE ASSESSEE. AS THERE IS SCARCITY OF PROFESSIONAL TAX PRACTITIONER S AT THE PLACE WHERE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY SITUATES AND THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY BEING A LADY COMPLETELY IGNOR ANT OF TAX LAWS AND MORE INVOLVED IN THE DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY, SHE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO KNOW ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PAS SED BY THE LEARNED CIT AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED THE NEWLY APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR CONDUCTING THE REGULAR APPEALS ON VERIFICATION OF RECORD SAID FACT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE COUNSEL AND AS PER HIS ADVICE THE PRESENT APPEAL I S FILED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY ON 10.2.2010. THE DELAY IS ONLY DUE TO IGNORANCE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY REGARDING IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SHE WAS BUSY INVOLVING IN THE DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF THE SOCIETY AND THEREBY CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT, NOWHERE THE DEPARTMENT FOUND THE NON - GENUINITY OF THE SOCIETY AND NON - CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE S OUGHT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THAT OCCURRED IN FILING THIS APPEAL AND ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS ALSO IN THEIR FAVOUR. I.T.A.NO. 39/CTK/2010 3 4. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE APART FROM CANVASSING THE ABOVE STATED UNDISPUTED FACTS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISI ONS OF LAW, THE LEARNED CIT IF SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOCIETY AND CHARITABLE NATURE OF OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ABSENCE OF MALL - FUNCTION OF THE SOCIETY OR DIVERSION OF THE FUNDS TO OTHER ACTIVITIES, THE CIT HAS TO PASS THE ORDER GRAN TING REGISTRATION U/S.12A AS PRAYED FOR . AT THE SAME TIME, IT WAS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW THAT IF THE CIT IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE GRANTING OF THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION OF THE SOCIETY, HE HAS TO NECESSARILY MENTION THE REASONS FO R DOING SO. BUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT HAS NOT AT ALL MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOCIETY NOR MENTIONED ANY REASON FOR N OT GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S.12 A FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION OF THE SOCIETY AS PRAYED FOR BY THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGISTRATION PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT IS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW AND REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SOUGHT FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DIRECTING THE LEAR NED CIT TO GRANT REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION OF THE SOCIETY AS PRAYED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATION SEEKING REGISTRATION. 5. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE LEARNED DR HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE SO ALSO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY ALLEGED THE REASONS OF DELAY BUT NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE SAME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION O F DELAY IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. ADVERTING TO THE GROUND PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ITSELF ENABLE THE CIT TO GRANT REGISTRATION FROM THE YEAR WHEN IT PASSES THE ORDER. IN I.T.A.NO. 39/CTK/2010 4 THE LIGHT O F THAT PROVISION, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT GIVING EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006 IS VERY MUCH RIGHT AND IS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF T HE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FOUND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE SOCIETY IS SITUATED IN A TRIBAL ARE A AND THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY TAX PRACTITIONER BEING AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR IMMEDIATE CONSULTATION ON THE DEMISE OF THE PREVIOUS AR OF THE ASSESSEE WHO DIED OF BLOOD CANCER AFTER PROLONGED ILLNESS. THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY, BEING A LADY, IS BUSY IN THE DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF THE SOCIETY IN ACHIEVING THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY THEREBY NOT FOUND NECESSARY TIME TO GO OUT TO THE AREA WHE RE THE SOCIETY CARRIES ITS OBJECTS AND ENGAGE A TAX CONSULTANT. THEREFORE, THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REASONABLE AND HENCE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS HEREBY CONDONED. 7. NOW COMING TO THE ASPECT OF THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E APPEAL, IT IS FOUND THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THERE IS NO WHISPER ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOCIETY NOR MALFUNCTIONING OF THE SOCIETY FOR OTHER OBJECTS THAN FOR WHICH THE SOCIETY WAS ESTABLISHED. APART FROM THAT WHEN THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR R EGISTRATION U/S.12A WAS FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION ON 20.3.1998 GIVING REGISTRATION W.E.F. 1.4.2006 BY THE LEARNED CIT , MUST NECESSARILY DISCLOSE THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. BUT THERE ARE NO SUCH REASONS MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN A WAY OF GRANTING THE REGISTRATION OF THE SOCIETY W.E.F. 1.4.2006 INSTEAD OF WITH EFFECT FROM A DATE PRAYED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN UNREASONED ONE, IT IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE UNDER LAW. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT GIVING EFFECT O F I.T.A.NO. 39/CTK/2010 5 THE REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT W.E.F. 1.4.2006 IS FOUND AS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALSO WITHOUT ANY REASON. HENCE, THE SAME IS HEREBY SET ASIDE DIRECTING THE LEARNED CIT TO GIVE THE REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION OR FROM THE DATE AS PRAYED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 19.01.2011 S D/ - S D/ - ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : ORGANISATION FOR THE RURAL WELFARE AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, AT/P.O. HAREKRIUSHNAPUR, VIA: NALAGAJA, DIST.MAYURBHANJ, ORISSA. 2 / THE RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CUTTACK. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, [ ] SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ( ), ( H.K.PADHEE ), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY.