Agricultural Market Committee, Wanaparthy Road, Hyderabad V. DIT, Hyderabad

ITA 599/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3099 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V N CHARYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYANARAYANA
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.599/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : NIL THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, WANAPARTHY ROAD, MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT (PAN AAALA 0296 L) VS THE DIT(E), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SATYANARAYANA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.V.N. CHARYA, DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERA BAD DATED 2.6.2008. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APP EAL: 1. THE LEARNED DIT(E) OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED REGISTRATI ON U/S 12A OF THE IT ACT W.E.F. 1.4.2002 AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE . 2. THE LEARNED DIT(E) OUGHT TO HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AND GRANTED REGISTRATI ON W.E.F. 1.4.2002. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD B BENCH IN ITA NO.125/HYD/2008 D ATED 31.3.2008, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYD ERABAD HAS REVISED HIS ORDER DATED 16.12.2004 REJECTING THE REGIST RATION U/S 12A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND HE HAS GRANTED THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A W.E.F. 1.4.2004 AS PER THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. NOW THE CO NTENTION OF THE ITA NO.599 OF 2010 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE 2 ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS THAT REGISTRATION OUGHT HAVE BEEN GRAN TED BY DIT(E) W.E.F. 1.4.2002 INSTEAD OF 1.4.2004. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 593 DAYS IN FILING THE APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED T HE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING ITS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN T HAT IT WAS DILIGENT AND WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE WHATSOEVER. THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LIMITATION PROV ISION MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY IN INVOKI NG THE AID OF THE PROVISIONS. THE HONBLE SUPREME IN THE CASE OF RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. (AIR 1962 SC 361) HAS HELD THAT THE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION. WHERE NO NEGLIGENCE, NOR INACTION, OR WANT OF BONA FIDES CAN BE IMPUTED TO THE ASSESSEE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE P ROVISIONS HAS TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SEE KERS OF JUSTICE MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE W AS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO SHOW THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO BONA FIDE REASONS. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE VERY WELL AVOIDED THE DELAY BY E XERCISING DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THERE EXIST S NO SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASON FOR THE DELAY OF 593 DAYS. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ADMITTING THE SAME. ITA NO.599 OF 2010 AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE 3 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 22.7.2010 SD/- SD/- G.C. GUPTA CHANDRA POOJARI VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 22ND JULY, 2010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, DOOR NO.3-6-643, ST. NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 2. THE DIT(E), HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A), HYDERABAD. 4. CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD. NP