9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 259 - HC - Income TaxPetitioner s application for grant of approval for exemption u/s 10(23C) (vi) - application was not considered by Chief Commissioner and rejected on the ground that the said application was filed beyond time Chief Commissioner may condone the delay - there is no clear statutory bar preventing such condonation - application for condonation should be considered on the merits. Then the application for grant of exemption may be considered on the merits
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act based on delayed filing. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act due to a delay in filing. The Chief Commissioner rejected the application as it was filed beyond the specified time limit. The petitioner argued that the application was filed within a reasonable time, considering the proviso added to section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The Chief Commissioner, however, held that the proviso did not provide him with the authority to condone the delay and thus rejected the application solely based on the delay. The court opined that even though the application was belatedly filed by an educational institution, it should have been considered on its merits. It emphasized that in quasi-judicial functions like this, the authority should have the power to condone delay if there are justifiable grounds for such condonation, especially when there is no clear statutory bar preventing it. The court directed the Chief Commissioner to consider condoning the delay based on an application to be filed by the petitioner explaining the circumstances for the delay. The decision on whether to condone the delay or not was left to the discretion of the Chief Commissioner, who was instructed to pass an order on the condonation petition within three months from the date of the court's order. The court disposed of the writ petition, and consequently, the related Miscellaneous Case No. 4165 of 2008 was also disposed of. A free copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the counsel for the Revenue.
|
