2017 (1) TMI 1684 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - petitioner approached the Tribunal with a delay of 1964 days - ground raised in the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application was the lack of understanding of the assessee with respect to the relevant procedure and the provisions of the Act - HELD THAT - Ignorance of law is not an excuse and lack of understanding would also be akin to ignorance; which cannot validly be taken up. The delay is also huge coming to 1964 days. This Court does not find any reason for condoning the delay and is unable to persuade itself to interfere with the order of the Tribunal The writ petition would stand dismissed leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to agitate the third application filed before the appropriate authority, which shall be applicable only to the future years, if at all.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in approaching the Tribunal for condonation of delay in filing application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for registration as a charitable institution.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for registration as a charitable institution, which was initially dismissed. Subsequently, another application was rejected, and a third application was said to be pending. The petitioner approached the Tribunal with a delay of 1964 days seeking condonation of the delay. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay, emphasizing that ignorance of the law or lack of understanding cannot be valid excuses. The Court noted the significant delay and upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no valid reason to interfere with it.

The Court highlighted that lack of understanding of the relevant procedure and provisions of the Act was not a justifiable ground for condoning the delay. The judgment underlined that ignorance of the law, including lack of understanding, cannot serve as a legitimate basis for seeking condonation of delay. Given the substantial delay of 1964 days, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument and upheld the Tribunal's decision to refuse condonation of delay.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, maintaining that the petitioner's remedy lies in agitating the third application filed before the appropriate authority for future years. The judgment clarified that the dismissal of the petition does not preclude the petitioner from pursuing the third application before the relevant authority, albeit applicable only to future years. This aspect of the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timelines in legal matters, especially concerning tax-related registrations and applications.