9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Fund Trust, Versus Director of Income-tax (Exemption) -I, Hyderabad [2012 (11) TMI 337 - ITAT, HYDERABAD] - the authorities who are in the knowledge of things have not advised the assessee regarding the person to whom the application should have made nor did they forward the application to the correct authority, leading to the delay in filing of application to the correct authority by the assessee - the assessee was pursuing the matter with CBDT and the Central Government - the earlier order of the Tribunal was recalled due to technical reasons and not for any error of judgment or error in decision making process, hence, the conclusion drawn by the bench still holds good - the delay in filing application for registration before DIT(E) is condoned and the matter is remitted back with a direction to consider assessee’s claim for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act from the date of creation of trust – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA Nos. 1993 and 1994/HYD/2011, ITA Nos. 1672 and 1673/HYD/2012 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2014 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao For the Respondent : Shri D. Sudhakar Rao ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Tribunal, the department filed miscellaneous applications for recalling the order dt.6.6.2012 passed by the bench for the reason that though there is delay of 1757 days in presenting the appeals before the ITAT but the Bench without addressing the issue of delay has disposed of the appeals on merits. Upon considering the misc. applications of the department the Tribunal recalled its earlier order and appeals were again posted for hearing. 5. In course of the present proceeding the assessee trust has furnished before us reasons explaining delay of 1757 days in presenting the appeals and has sought condonation of the same. Though, the reasons for delay are in affidavit format signed by the trusteebut actually it is not a sworn affidavit. Be that as it may, reason for delay as per assessee s explanation is as under- The order of DIT(E), Hyderabad, dated 04/12/20065, was received on 14/12/2006, and the same could not be filed in time as the papers had been misplaced by one of office staff and the same could be traced out and could be filed on 05/12/2011 with the delay of 1757 days as the appeal was due for filing on 12/02/2007 and instead of that the same has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uide us in deciding the issue. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the words sufficient cause are adequately elastic to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The Hon ble Apex Court held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold and cause of justice being defeated. On the other hand, if delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. It was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafide. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. Rather he runs a serious risk. The Hon ble Apex Court observed that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100% exemption to the trust from the purview of income tax lies with the Central Government represented by the Chairman CBDT. Due to these reasons, the trust could not file the application for registration of trust within the stipulated time before the DIT(E) and the registration has not been granted with effect from 1997-98 till today. The assessee based on his bonafide belief had been approaching the wrong authorities for granting exemption. We also find that the authorities who are in the knowledge of things have not advised the assessee regarding the person to whom the application should have made nor did they forward the application to the correct authority, leading to the delay in filing of application to the correct authority by the assessee. 11. Since there was a sufficient cause for delay in filing the application, we condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of the DIT(E), who shall decide upon the application of the assessee in considering the case in terms of section 12AA. Further the DIT(E) shall consider according registration with effect from the date of creation of the trust in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier may be treated as return in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed assessment for both the assessment years by bringing to tax the excess of income over expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,03,30,007/- and Rs. 88,40,365/- for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively. 15. Being aggrieved of the assessment orders so passed the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A). 16. The CIT(A), though, held that in absence of registration u/s 12A of the Act for the periods under consideration, the Assessing Officer was justified in denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) on considering the fact that the ITAT in its order dated 06/06/2012 passed in ITA NO. 1993 1994/Hyd/2011, condoned the delay in filing the application for registration before DIT(E) and remitted the matter back to him for fresh consideration held in the following manner: 6.2 However, it is seen that the Hon ble ITAT vide their order dated 06/06/2012 in ITA Nos. 1993 and 1994/hyd/2011 in the appellant case have held that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the application for registration by the appellant. Condoning the delay, therefore they have remi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
