Shri Chaitanya Mauli Vishwasta Mandal, Sangli V. Jt. CIT, Range-2, Sangli

ITA 404/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56396 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Reasonable cause
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS.404, 405 & 406/PN/2010 SHRI CHAITANYA MAULI VISHASTA MANGAL . IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM ITA NOS.404, 405 & 406/PN/2010 ASST. YEARS: 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06 SHRI CHAITANYA MAULI VISHWASTA MANDAL JOSHI BUNGLOW, PANCHASHEELNAGAR, SANGLI PAN AAAAI0337D APPELLANT VS. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2, SANGLI RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K.KULKARNI, SR.ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.ANN KAPTHUAMA, DR ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS0, KOLHAPUR DT. 7-12-2009, FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS REL ATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272A(2)(I) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2 ITA NOS.404, 405 & 406/PN/2010 SHRI CHAITANYA MAULI VISHASTA MANGAL . 3. THE COMMON FACTS FOR ALL THESE APPEALS INCLUDE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.13994A) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS A TAXABLE INCOME AND IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE RETURN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.139(11) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO F ILE THE SAME IN TIME. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS A DEFAULTER IN FILING A BELAT ED RETURN WITH A DELAY AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR PARTICULARS ARE TABULATED A S UNDER. S.NO. ASST.YEAR DATE OF AUDIT DATE OF GENERAL MEETING DATE OF FILING OF RETURN NO.OF DAYS OF DELAY AMOUNT OF PENALTY LEVIED 1 2002 - 03 09 - 07 - 2002 06 - 10 - 2002 13 - 12 - 2002 42 RS.4,200 2 2004 - 05 12 - 05 - 2004 05 - 09 - 2004 25 - 01 - 2005 85 RS.8,500 3 2005 - 06 15 - 12 - 2005 05 - 09 - 2005 09 - 03 - 2006 128 RS.12,800 THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD INCLUDE T HAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO ASSESSEES FAILURE TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND THE FAILURE TO GET THE SAID ACCOUNTS APPROVED BY THE AGM OF THE TRUST. A FINDI NG THAT THE ID AUDIT AND THE GENERAL BODY MEETING WERE HELD PRIOR TO THE SAID DU E DATES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.4,200, 8,500 AND RS.12,800 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS A REMAND OF THE MATTER FOR DECIDING WHETHER THE ASS ESSEE HAD TAXABLE INCOME OR NOT AND FOR ALSO EXAMINING THE REASONABLE CAUSE OF RELA TED ISSUES. THE REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THE DETAILS OF THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE THREE YEARS ARE DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPH 6.1 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. FINALLY, THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMMITTED A DEFAULT AT TRACTING THE PENALTY U/S 3 ITA NOS.404, 405 & 406/PN/2010 SHRI CHAITANYA MAULI VISHASTA MANGAL . 272A(2)(E) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES L EVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE PROCESS, THE CIT(A) DISTINGUISHED THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE ARGUMENTS WERE REITERATED AND MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST A ND THE MAIN TRUSTEE IS A SEPTUAGENARIAN AND ARGUED FOR CANCELLATION OF THE P ENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATAIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. ON APPRECIATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AS WELL AS THE REAS ONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPHS 8 AND 9 WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AUDIT WAS COMPLETED WELL IN TIME, THEE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE RETURNS BE LATEDLY. PARAGARAPHS 8 AND 9 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER AREA REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR TH E SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER. 8. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONS IDERED. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.139(4A) WERE CONSIDERED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT O F BOMBAY IN THE DECISION REPORTED IN 250 ITR 488 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WH EREVER SEC.139(4A) APPLIES THE RETURNS HAVE TO BE FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED U/S 139(1). THEREFORE, THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THERE WAS REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME BEYOND THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 13991). AS C AN BE SEEN FROM THE DATES GIVEN IN THE EARLIER PARAGARAPHS, THOUGH THE AUDIT AS COMPLETED ON 09-07-2002 AND THE GENERAL MEETING WAS HELD ON 06-10-2002 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ONLY ON 13-12-2002. NO CASE IS MADE OUT FOR THE DELAY I N FILING OF RETURN BEYOND THE DUE DATE I.E. 31-10-2002. THE APPELLANT HAD AMPE TIME FROM 06-10-2002, 31-10-2002 TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILAR IS THE CASE WIT H OTHER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE GENERAL INNATAU ARE AND NO SPECIFIC REASON WAS GIVEN FOR FILING OF THE RETURNS BEYOND THE DUE DATE . THE APPELLANT CLAMS THAT IT WAS REGISTERED U/S 12A FROM 1983 ONWARDS AND IT WAS ALS O FILING REGULARLY PETITIONS U/S 80G. THEREFORE, IT WAS AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSOFOUND THATA THE APPELLANT TRUST IS A HA BITUAL LATE FILER. 4 ITA NOS.404, 405 & 406/PN/2010 SHRI CHAITANYA MAULI VISHASTA MANGAL . 9. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 7 HARYANA IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY REPORTED IN 184 TAXMAN 502. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER EXEMPTIN TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 1191) CAN BE ALLOWED INSTEAD OF EXEMPTION U/S 11(4A ). OBVIOUSLY, THIS ISSUE HAS NO RELEVANCE WHILE CONSIDERING THE REASONABLE CAUSE FO R FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME BEYOND THE DUE DATE ALLOWED U/S 139(10 R.W.S.139(4A ). THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR ALL THE ASST.YEARS AREA DISMISSED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO REA SONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH WILL STAND THE TEST OF SCRUTINY OF THIS TRIBU NAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE AREA DISMISSED. (IC SUDHIR) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE, DATED THE JULY, 2011 *VNR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEES AS MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE 2. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE. 3. CIT (A)-I, PUNE. 4. CIT CONCERNED, 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE 5 ITA NOS.404, 405 & 406/PN/2010 SHRI CHAITANYA MAULI VISHASTA MANGAL .