M/s Grameena Chaitanya Veddika, Veeraghattam V. The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam

ITA 500/VIZ/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2584 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J SIRI KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.499&500/VIZ/2009 GRAMEENA CHAITANYA VEDIKA, VEERAGHATTAM IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 499 & 500 /VIZAG/ 20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : N.A. M/S. GRAMEEN A CHAITANYA VEDDIKA VEERAGHATTAM CIT - 2 VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AAATG 9402A APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J. SIRI KUMAR, DR ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THESE APPEALS ARE PREFER RED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT REJECTING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE I.T. ACT. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE OFFICE THAT BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 218 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FO R CONDONATION OF DELAY STATING THEREIN THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS FORMED WITH C HARITABLE OBJECT INCLUDING ENCOURAGEMENT OF THRIFT AND SELF - HELP AMONG RURAL POOR. IT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA BEFORE THE CIT. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS RE JECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2009. THERE AFTER, HE WAS ADVISED TO FILE ANOTHER APPLICATION AND ACCORDINGLY FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION ON 28.5.2009 BEFORE THE CIT , WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT FIRST APPLICATION HAD A LREADY BEEN REJECTED AND HENCE SECOND APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AGAIN. THERE AFTER , THE ASSESSEE CONTACTED THE SENIOR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND CAME TO KNOW THAT PROPER COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO PREFER AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE AFTE R THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 5.11.2009. THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 218 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE REASONS AND THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . ITA NOS.499&500/VIZ/2009 GRAMEENA CHAITANYA VEDIKA, VEERAGHATTAM 2 2. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HA S SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ASSISTED BY THE TAX CONSULTANTS. THEY HAVE MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE I.T. ACT . O NCE IT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE CIT VIDE ITS ORDER DATE D 28.1.2009 , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CHALLENGED THAT ORDER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY FILING THE APPEAL BUT THEY DID NOT DO SO AND THEY MOVED A SECOND APPLICATION ONLY ON 18.5.2009 I.E. AFTER A PERIOD OF 4 MONTHS AND THE SECOND APPLICATION WAS ALSO REJECTED V IDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2009 . E VEN THEN THE SECOND REJECTION OF CIT WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY FILING AN APPEAL IN TIME. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN NUMBER OF CASES THAT THE DELAY HAS T O BE EXPLAINED PROPERLY BY THE ASSESSEE. IF IT IS PROVED THAT DELAY WAS CAUSED FOR BONAFIDE REASONS, IT CAN ONLY BE CONDONED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO BONAFIDE REASONS ARE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED IN TIME. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.1.2009. THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND IT MUST BE ASSISTED BY SOME TAX CONSULTANTS AND NO PROPER JUSTIFICATION IS PLACED BEFORE US AS TO WHY THIS ORDER WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH IT. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD FILED A SECOND APPLICATION ON W RONG ADVICE ON 18.5.2009, WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED ON 30.7.2009 , WE FIND NO VALID REASONS AS TO WHY THE ORDER OF THE CIT IS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , DESPITE OF SECOND REJECTION. HE HAS NOT MADE A CASE THAT DELAY WAS CAUSED ON THE PART OF THE PRO FESSIONALS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO EXPLAIN TH E DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL, WE FIND NO VALID JUSTIFICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY. WE THEREFORE, REJECT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. SINCE WE ITA NOS.499&500/VIZ/2009 GRAMEENA CHAITANYA VEDIKA, VEERAGHATTAM 3 HAVE DISMISSED THE SE APPEALS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, WE RESTRAIN OURSELVES FROM ADJUDICATING THESE APPEALS ON MERIT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 - 12 - 20 10 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 20 - 12 - 20 10 COPY TO 1 M/S. GRAMEENA CHAITANYA VEDDIKA, VEERAGHATTAM, SRIKAKULAM DIST. PIN - 532460. 2 CIT - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CIT (A) , VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM