Institute of Management Committee ITI (Women), Madurai V. CIT, Madurai

ITA 612/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96513 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KOTEESWARA RAO IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S DURAISAMY VICE CHAIRMANITI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 12AA; 12; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , #'$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.612 & 613/MDS/2015 # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 12AA INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, ITI (WOMEN) MADURAI 625 007. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I (I/C) MADURAI. [ PAN AAAJI 0357G] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. DURAISAMY, VICE CHAIRMAN,ITI +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. KOTEESWARA RAO, IRS, CIT. ! ) - / DATE OF HEARING : 01-12-2015 ./& ) - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-12-2015 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE COMM UNICATION NO.464/222/09-10/CIT-I, DATED 01.02.2011 IN RESPECT OF REJECTION OF REGISTRATION U/SEC.12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I , MADURAI IN C.NO.464/222/CIT-I/2009-2010, DATED 27.09.2010 PASS ED UNDER ITA NOS.612 & 613/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: SECTION 12 AA (1)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT. 2. BOTH THE APPEALS ARISE FROM THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF SEC.12AA REGISTRATION BY THE REVENUE. BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TWO CONDONATION APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.612 & 613/ MDS/2015. 3. BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ASSES SEE HAS PLEADED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 1454 DAYS AND 1542 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.612 & 613/MDS/2015 RESPECTIV ELY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTE IS REPRESENTED BY SHRI. S. DURAI SAMY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF S. DURAISAMY AND SONS, WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTION BEING VICE CHAIRMAN OF IM C ITI (WOMEN) AND NODAL OFFICER OF IMC AFFAIRS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED AFFIDAVITS AND PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE VALID REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AND ARGUED TO CONSI DER THE APPEALS ON MERITS. THE CONDONATION PETITIONS OF THE INSTITUTE ARE AS UNDER:- BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH ITA NO.612/MDS/2015. INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, ITI(WOMEN) GOVERNMENT ITI(WOMEN), K.PUDUR, PETITIONER/ APPELLANT MADURAI - 625007. ITA NOS.612 & 613/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-I(I/C) MADURAI-2. RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI REJECTING THE SEC.154 PETITION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 2.2.11. TH E APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR B EFORE 3.4.11. INSTEAD, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 26.3.15 RESULTING IN A DELAY OF 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 26 DAYS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THIS ORDER WAS RECEIVED, THE PETITIONER WAS ADVISED TO FILE ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REGISTR ATION ALONG WITH ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE PETITIONER DULY FILED THI S APPLICATION BEFORE CIT ON 25.2.11. THE CIT ADJUDICATING THIS APPLICATI ON, GRANTED REGISTRATION TO THE SOCIETY U/S.12AA VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 13.6.11, BUT EFFECTIVE FROM 1.4.10 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2011-1 2. LATER, THE OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 AN D SOUGHT TO ASSESS THE INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS ON THE GROU ND THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THIS YEAR AND SO ASSESSEE IS N OT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. BY ORDER DATED 19.3.13 PASSED U/S.148 R.W.S.143(3), THE OFFICER ASSESSED THE AMOUNT OF IN TEREST AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A), MADURAI AND IS PENDING DISPOSAL. AT THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED THAT IT HAS OBTAIN REGISTRATION FOR THE EAR LIER PERIOD ALSO FOR BEING ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME. THUS, TH E PETITIONER APPROACHED THE COUNSEL FOR PREPARING AN APPEAL TO T HE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL WAS EVENTUALLY FILED ON 26.3.1 5 WITH A DELAY OF 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 25 DAYS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON BUT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER. THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN PURSUING ALTER NATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE THE CIT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE REGISTRATION. IN FACT, THE CIT HAVING BEEN SATISFIED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOCIETY AND ITS ACTIVITIES HAD GRANTED REGISTRATION FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING 1.4 .10. IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEAL DECIDED ON MERITS, THE PETITIONER WOULD BE PUT TO CONSIDERABLE HARDSHIP AND INJURY. THE ENT ITLEMENT OF ASSESSEE TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC.11 FOR THE ASST. YE AR 2010-11 WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE ON A MERE TECHNICAL GROUND WHICH IS NO T ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ISSUE IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION IN 370 ITR 517, W HEREIN THE COURT HAS HELD THAT CARRYING ON OF ACTIVITY CANNOT BE SET AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION OF THE SOCIETY/ TRUST. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MA Y BE PLEASED TO ITA NOS.612 & 613/MDS/2015 :- 4 -: CONDONE THE DELAY OF 3 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND 25 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL, ADMIT THE APPEAL AND DISPOSE IT OF ON MERITS AND TH US RENDER JUSTICE. DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF MARCH 2015 AT MADURAI. BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH ITA NO. 613/MDS/2015. INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, ITI(WOMEN) PETITIONER/APPELLANT GOVERNMENT ITI(WOMEN), K.PUDUR, MADURAI - 625007. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-I(I/C) MADURAI-2. RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME- TAX, MADURAI REJECTING REGISTRATION U/S.12A A WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16.11.10. THE APPEAL TO THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON OR BEFORE 15.1.11. INSTEAD, T HE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 26 .3.15 RESULTING IN A DELAY OF 4 YEARS 3 MONTH S AND 10 DAYS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THIS ORDER WAS RECEIVED, THE PETITIONER FILED A RECTIFICATION PETITION BEFORE THE CIT ON 8. 12.10 AND THE CIT BY ORDER DATED 1.2.11 REJECTED THE SAME, WHICH WAS REC EIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 2.2.11. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO FILE ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ALONG WITH ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE PETITIONER DULY FILED THIS APPLICATI ON BEFORE CIT ON 25.2.11. THE CIT ADJUDICATING THIS APPLICATION, GRA NTED REGISTRATION TO THE SOCIETY U/S.12AA VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 13.6.11, BUT EFFECTIVE FROM 1.4.10 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2011-12. LATER, THE O FFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 AND SOUGHT TO AS SESS THE INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS ON THE GROUND THAT REGIS TRATION IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THIS YEAR AND SO ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTI TLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. BY ORDER DATED 19.3.13 PASSED U/ S.148 R.W.S.143(3), THE OFFICER ASSESSED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), MADURAI AND IS PENDING DISPOSAL. AT THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED T HAT IT HAS TO OBTAIN REGISTRATION FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD ALSO FOR BEING ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME. THUS, THE PETITIONER APPROACHED THE COU NSEL FOR PREPARING AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL WAS EVENTUALLY FILED ON 26.3.15 WITH A DELAY OF 4 YEARS 3 MONTHS AND 10 DAYS. ITA NOS.612 & 613/MDS/2015 :- 5 -: IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON BUT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER. THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN PURSUING ALTERN ATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE THE CIT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE REGISTRATION. IN FACT, THE CIT HAVING BEEN SATISFIED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE S OCIETY AND ITS ACTIVITIES HAD GRANTED REGISTRATION FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING 1.4.10. IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEAL DECIDED O N MERITS, THE PETITIONER WOULD BE PUT TO CONSIDERABLE HARDSHIP AN D INJURY. THE ENTITLEMENT OF ASSESSEE TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC.11 F OR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11 WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE ON A MERE TECHNICAL GROUND WHICH IS NOT ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. FURTHER , THE ISSUE IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DE CISION IN 370 ITR 517, WHEREIN THE COURT HAS HELD THAT CARRYING ON OF ACTIVITY CANNOT BE SET AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR GRANT OF REGISTRAT ION OF THE SOCIETY/TRUST. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MA Y BE PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 4 YEARS 3 MONTHS AND 10 DAY S IN FILING THE APPEAL, ADMIT THE APPEAL AND DISPOSE IT OF ON MERIT S AND THUS RENDER JUSTICE. DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 AT MADURAI. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE PARTY IN PERSON COULD N OT EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE APPEALS FILED BELATED LY AND EMPHASIZING THE CAUSE OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS IS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON BUT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PETITIONER. WHEN THE BENCH ASKED FOR THE AUTHORIZATION THE SAME WAS NOT PRODUCED EXCEPT MAKING A UNCONVINCING STATEMENT AND THE PRI ME FACIE INSTITUTE HAS MADE AN INORDINATE DELAY, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. TRACTORS & FA RMS EQUIPMENTS LTD 104 ITD 149 AT PAGE NO.150 WHEREIN I T WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE THE DELAYS IS OF A FEW DAYS. WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CASE, THE CONSIDERATIO N OF ITA NOS.612 & 613/MDS/2015 :- 6 -: PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE A RELEVANT FACT OR, SO THE CASE CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIOUS APPROACH, IN THE LAT TER CASE, NO SUCH CONSIDERATION MAY ARISE AND SUCH A CASE DESERV ES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NO HARD AND FAST RULE CAN BE LAI D DOWN IN THIS REGARD. THE COURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETI ON ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE, KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONSIDE RING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE THE PRINCIPLE OF ADVA NCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN T HE DICTUM: VIGILANTIBUS NON DOEMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APP ELLANTS CASE IS HARD AND CALLS FOR SYMPATHY OR MERELY OUT O F BENEVOLENCE TO THE PARTY SEEKING RELIEF. IN GRANTIN G THE INDULGENCE AND CONDONING THE DELAY, IT MUST BE PROV ED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS D ILIGENT AND WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE, WHATSOEVER. THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LIMITATION PR OVISIONS MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY INVOKING THE AID OF THE PROVISIONS. 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 T HE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION. WHERE NO NEGLIGENCE O R INACTION, OR WANT OF BONAFIDES CAN BE IMPUTED TO THE APPELLA NT, A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS HAS TO BE MA DE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SEEKERS OF JUSTICE MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS. 5. IN OUR OPINION THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED IN THE C ONDONATION PETITIONS COULD NOT CONVINCE US AND THERE SEEMS TO BE A GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTION WERE NO P RIORITY WAS FIXED AND SUCH LAPSES CANNOT BE CONDONED. FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF TRACTORS & FARMS EQUIPMENTS LTD (SUPRA) WHERE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL AND NEGLIGENCE, INACTION AND INORDINATE D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS NOT CONDONED. LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO AR E VIGILANT AND NOT ITA NOS.612 & 613/MDS/2015 :- 7 -: THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. WE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED IN AFFIDAVIT AND ALSO SUBMI SSIONS OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN IN THE LIGHT OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION , DECLINE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AND ACCORDINGLY DI SMISS THE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DEC EMBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 3 / DATED:16.12.2015 KV 4 ) +#-56 76&- / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ! 8- () / CIT(A) 5. 6 9: +#-# / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. ! 8- / CIT 6. :;% < / GF