Mecca Madina Alladin Wakf, Hyderabad V. DIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

ITA 731/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98652 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHAN SINGH SINGHANIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.731/HYD/2013 MECCA MADINA ALLADIN WAKF , SECUNDERABAD (PAN - AAATM 8734 D) V/S DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX(EXEMPTION) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.C.YADAV RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHAN SINGH SINGHANIA, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING 29.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 4.11.2015 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST DENIAL OF REGIS TRATION UNDER S.12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 WITH EFFEC T FROM THE DATE OF ITS INCEPTION, I.E. 1953. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I NSTITUTION WAS SET UP IN THE YEAR 1953, WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF S.1 1 AND 12 WERE NOT IN VOGUE. SUBSEQUENT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF S.11 AN D 12 IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPLI CATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10A ON 20.11.2006 SEEK ING REGISTRATION UNDER S.12A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON THE GROUND THA T THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SATIS FACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED AND ASSESS EES APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION WAS REJ ECTED. HOWEVER, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) VIDE HIS ORDER DA TED 7.3.2007 HAS ALLOWED REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE WITH EFFECT FR OM 1.4.2006. AGAINST ITA NO.731/HYD/2013 MECCA MADINA ALLADIN WAKF, SECUND ERABAD 2 THE SAID ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPT ION) GRANTING REGISTRATION ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006 AND NOT FROM THE INCEPTION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL, BUT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 526 DAYS IN FILING SUCH APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONDONING THE DELAY HAS SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO HIM FOR RECONSIDERING THE GRANTING OF REGISTRATION TO THE A SSESSEE FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GI VING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 3. IN VIEW OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE ITAT, ASSESSEE S APPLICATION WAS RECONSIDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INC OME- TAX(EXEMPTION). DURING THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS STATIONED IN DELHI AND THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE RECORD OF THE TRUST, AND WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE TRUST IS A REGISTERED ONE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH . IT WAS STATED THAT HE SHIFTED TO HYDERABAD IN 2005-0 6 AND WHILE GOING THROUGH THE PAPERS, HE NOTICED THAT THE TRUST HAS N O REGISTRATION. HE THEN IMMEDIATELY TOOK UP STEPS FOR FILING APPLICATI ON FOR REGISTRATION, WHICH WAS FILED ON 20.11.2006. THEREFORE, IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS NEITHER WILFUL NOR WANTON AND HENCE, DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED AND THE ASSESSEES REGISTRATION SHOULD BE GRANTED FROM ITS INCEPTION. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) W AS HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION MAD E IN THE AFFIDAVIT. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR CONDONATION OF SUCH LONG AND UNDUE DUE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE TRUST. ACCORDINGLY, HE REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION HOLDING THAT THE EARLIER DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) HAS RIGHT LY GRANTED ITA NO.731/HYD/2013 MECCA MADINA ALLADIN WAKF, SECUND ERABAD 3 REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.12A WITH EFFEC T FROM 1.4.2006 ONLY. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INC OME-TAX (EXEMPTION), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMP TION), WHEREAS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION). 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006. IN FACT, THE APPLICATION ITSE LF HAS BEEN MADE ON 20.11.2006. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, GENUINENESS OF THE TRUST IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS NOT THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION UNDER S.12A, BUT IT IS WITH REGARD TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF A LONG PERIOD 17 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS. AS RIGHTLY ARGUED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRA TE THE PREJUDICE IF ANY, CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM NON-GRANTING OF REGISTRATION UNDER S.12A OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION. ACCORD ING TO HIM, CONSIDERATION OF ANY EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL WOULD LEAD TO AN EXTRA ORDINARY CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. W E FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BASAWARAJ AND ANR. V/S. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (2013) 14 SCC 811, AFTER C ONSIDERING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY, HAS HELD AS UNDER- 15. THE LAW ON THE ISSUE CAN BE SUMMARIZED TO THE EFFECT THAT WHERE A CASE HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN THE COURT BEYOND LIMITATION, THE APPLICANT HAS TO EXPLAIN THE COURT ITA NO.731/HYD/2013 MECCA MADINA ALLADIN WAKF, SECUND ERABAD 4 AS TO WHAT WAS THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH MEANS AN ADEQUATE AND ENOUGH REASON WHICH PREVENTED HIM TO APPROACH THE COURT WITHIN LIMITATION. IN CASE A PAR TY IS FOUND TO BE NEGLIGENT, OR FOR WANT OF BONA FIDE ON HIS PART ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, OR FOUN D TO HAVE NOT ACTED DILIGENTLY OR REMAINED ACTIVE, THERE CANNOT BE A JUSTIFIED GROUND TO CONDONE THE DELAY. NO COUR T COULD BE JUSTIFIED IN CONDONING SUCH AN INORDINATE DELAY BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITION WHATSOEVER. THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DECIDED ONLY WITHIN THE PARAMETERS LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN REGARD TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN CA SE THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO PREVENT A LITIGANT TO AP PROACH THE COURT ON TIME CONDONING THE DELAY WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION, PUTTING ANY CONDITION WHATSOEVER, AM OUNTS TO PASSING AN ORDER IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AND IT TANTAMOUNTS TO SHOWING UTTER DIS REGARD TO THE LEGISLATURE. 7. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT S HOWN SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF A LONG PERIOD OF OVER 17 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHT I N SAYING THAT AT THE TIME ITS INCEPTION, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE NOT ON THE STATUTE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY APPLICATION EVEN AF TER THE PROVISIONS HAVE COME INTO THE STATUTE BOOK, AND HAS NOT TAKEN ANY CONCRETE STEPS TO GET ITSELF REGISTERED TILL 20.11.2006. THEREFORE , WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTION), AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORD INGLY DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4TH NOVE MBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHAMAN) (P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/- 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 ITA NO.731/HYD/2013 MECCA MADINA ALLADIN WAKF, SECUND ERABAD 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. MECCA MADINA ALLADIN WAKF (SECUNDERABAD) C/O. SRI M.M.FIRDOS, ADVOCATE, 11-3-42, 1 ST FLOOR, NEW MALLEPALLY, HYDERABAD 2. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION) HYDERABAD 3. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX(EXEMPTION) III, HYDERABAD 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.