9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 566 - AT - Income TaxRegistration u/s 10(23C)(vi) - application in form no. 56D was filed belatedly by the assessee on 27.10.2018 for seeking registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) - HELD THAT - For the financial year 2017-18, as the power vested only with CBDT u/s 119(2)(b) of the 1961 to condone the delay. There is one more aspect, the assessee has claimed that the application in Form No. 56D on 27.10.2018 was filed on 27.10.2018 for seeking registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) for not only financial year 2017-18 , but also for subsequent years too, while the ld. CIT(E) has observed that the aforesaid application was filed by assessee only for one financial year2018-19(sic. financial year 2017-18). The copy of application in Form No. 56D filed by the assessee on 27.10.2018 is not produced before us. Whether the application was filed merely for one year as contended by ld. CIT(E) in its order or for financial year 2017-18 and subsequent years too as contended by assessee, is again a disputed fact, which requires to be verified by ld. CIT(E). If that be so as contended by the assessee that the application in Form No. 56D was filed for financial year 2017-18 and subsequent years, then ld. CIT(E) was right in rejecting the same for financial year 2017-18 as the application being belated application, while the ld. CIT(E) ought to have dealt with application for the assessee for subsequent years, as per law. Thus, we are restoring the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication , in accordance with directions as per our order. The ld. CIT(E) will first verify two disputed facts as are referred to in this order, before proceeding to adjudicate the issues on merit in accordance with law.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was filed within the prescribed time. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has the authority to condone the delay in filing the application. 3. Whether the application for exemption should be considered for subsequent years if filed belatedly for the initial year. Detailed Analysis: 1. Timeliness of the Application: The assessee filed an application in Form No. 56D for registration under Section 10(23C)(vi) on October 27, 2018, seeking exemption for the financial year 2017-18. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] noted that the application should have been filed on or before September 30, 2018, making the application belated. The tribunal confirmed that the application was indeed filed late, as per the law prevailing at the relevant time, which required the application to be submitted by September 30 of the relevant assessment year. 2. Authority to Condon the Delay: The CIT(E) held that there was no power vested in them to condone the delay in filing the application. The tribunal referenced multiple judicial precedents to support this conclusion, including: - Roland Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. CCIT & others: The Orissa High Court ruled that there is no provision for condonation of delay in presenting an application for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). - RRM Education Society Vs. CCIT: The Andhra Pradesh High Court followed the decision of the Orissa High Court, reiterating that the CIT does not have the authority to condone delays. - Sant Baba Sunder Singh Canadian Charitable Trust, Barnala Vs. CBDT: The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the rejection of an application filed after the prescribed period. - ID Education Society Vs. PCCIT: The Allahabad High Court confirmed that there is no basis for condoning the delay in filing the exemption application beyond the statutory date. The tribunal also cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Sanjay Ghodawat University, Kolhapur v. CIT(E), Pune, which clarified that the power to condone delay rests with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Consideration for Subsequent Years: The tribunal noted a disputed fact regarding whether the application filed on October 27, 2018, was for the financial year 2017-18 only or also for subsequent years. The CIT(E) had rejected the application on the grounds that it was filed only for one financial year (2017-18), while the assessee contended that it was for subsequent years as well. The tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for verification of this fact. The tribunal directed the CIT(E) to first verify whether the application was indeed for subsequent years. If it was, the CIT(E) should consider the application for subsequent years on its merits, as the application for those years would be within the prescribed time if filed before the cut-off date for those years. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is to verify the disputed facts and proceed to adjudicate the issues on merit in accordance with the law. The tribunal emphasized that the CIT(E) had rightly rejected the application for the financial year 2017-18 due to its belated filing but should consider the application for subsequent years if it was indeed filed for those years.
|
