BHANDARY SEVA SAMITI, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 6765/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75837 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRITAM SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6765/M/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 M/S. BHANDARY SEVA SAMITHI, C/O. SHANKAR & KISHORE, B/702, OX FORD CHAMBERS, SAKI VIHAR ROAD, NEAR L & T, POWAI, MUMBAI 400 072 PAN: AAATB4586A VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI 400 0 1 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESS EE BY : SHRI HARIDAS BHAT , A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI PRITAM SINGH, D . R . DATE OF HEARING : 25.03 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.03.2014 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS ) [(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS D IT( E )] DATED 31.01.13 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) . THE APP EAL IS TIME BARRED BY 49 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF THE ABOVE PERIOD. 2. HEARD ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS WELL AS ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATI ON PERIOD OF 49 DAYS. IN ITS APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY , THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD RECEIVED THE ORDER OF THE LD. DIT(E) ON 05.08.13. SINCE THE APPROVAL WAS ITA NO. 6765/M/2013 M/S. BHANDARY SEVA SAMITHI 2 REJECTED FOR NON ATTENDANCE, THE ASSESSEE MADE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION . O N NOT GETTING ANY POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM THE LD. DIT(E) , THE TRUST PROCEEDED TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT HA S BEEN THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS BECAUSE OF AB OVE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE APPLICATION IS SUPPORTED WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEE S OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATION HAS PLEADED THAT SINCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED EX - PARTE BY THE LD. DIT(E), HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAD R EPRESENTED BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE ANY COPY OR EVIDENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION WHICH ALLEGEDLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E). HOWEVER, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSES SEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT ANY SUCH REPRESENTATION/APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER. IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. DIT(E) IS A JUDICIAL ORDER. ANY APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION ETC. , WHETHER MAINTAINABLE OR NOT MAINTAINABLE , CAN BE FILED BEFORE HIM IN WRITING AND NOT ORALLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COPY OR EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH APPLICATION OR REPRESENTATION HAD ACTUALLY BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E). THE ASSESSEE THUS HAS TAKEN A FALSE PLEA OF FILING ANY SUCH REPRESENTATION. THOUGH THE PERIOD OF DELAY IS 49 DAYS ONLY BUT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE COME WITH CLEAN HANDS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH A REASONABL E EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT PREVENTED IT FROM FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. INSTEAD OF GIVING ANY COGENT OR CONVINCING EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A FALSE PLEA AND HAS NOT COME TO THIS TRIBUNAL WITH CLEAN HANDS AND THUS DOES NOT DES ERVE ANY LENIENCY IN THIS RESPECT. EVEN ON MERITS , THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE. THE LD. A.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 6765/M/2013 M/S. BHANDARY SEVA SAMITHI 3 80G(5)(VI) HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. DIT(E) FOR WANT OF PRESENCE OF THE A SSESSEE. 4. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE LD. DIT(E) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE CASE ON MERITS AND HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT BEEN ENGAGED IN ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSE SSEES TRUST HAVE BEEN CONFINED TO ONE COMMUNITY ONLY I.E. BHANDARY COMMUNITY. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DETAILS SUCH AS SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF THE AUDIT ACC OUNTS AND DETAILS OF THE DONATIONS RECEIVED ETC. AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 80G(5)(VI). WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW US THE REQUIRED DETAILS FOR WANT OF WHI CH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN REJECTED. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.R. HAS REPLIED THAT NO SUCH DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE WITH HIM. HE HAS ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHICH OF THE FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. DIT(E) WAS WRONG OR NOT JUSTIFIED. EVEN NO DETAILS OR DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US I N SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST . E VEN NO COPY OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE US DESPITE A SPECIFIC QUERY BY US IN THIS RESPECT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. DIT(E) EVEN ON MERITS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.03. 201 4 . SD/ - SD/ - ( N . K. BILLAIYA ) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25/03/2014 . * KISHORE ITA NO. 6765/M/2013 M/S. BHANDARY SEVA SAMITHI 4 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT ( A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.