9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with the objects specified in the trust deed, may not be backed by any materials. Delay in filling appeal by assessee against rejection - Held that:- No doubt, the delay of 1902 days is a huge and enormous delay. But, when we look at the reasons given by the assessee for such a delay, it shows that it is not attributable to any lame excuses on medical grounds or otherwise. But, it is only the reason of either non advise on the part of the professional, who has been engaged by the assessee or the ignorance of law by the assessee itself. Assessee knew well that if a plea of ignorance of law is taken, that would be, on the face of it, rejected by the court/Tribunal, nevertheless, such a plea alone had been taken by the assessee and that itself would show the inherent genuineness attached with the reason cited by the assessee for such huge delay. The order impugned of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal of the assessee mainly on the ground of delay, is liable to be interfered with. In addition, we also feel that the further reason given by the Tribunal for arriving at such a conclusion that the assessee was not engaging in activities in accordance with the objects specified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. After some years, during December 2015, the assessee had received recovery notice from the Revenue dated 14.12.2015 for the assessment year 2013-14. Only in that context, the assessee had discussion with professional person for getting professional advise where the issue that the rejection order passed by the CIT refusing to register the assessee's entity under section 12AA of the Act had been brought to the notice to the professional and on whose advise the assessee came to know that as against the order of rejection made by the CIT under section 12AA of the Act, an appeal to the Tribunal has been provided for by way of newly inserted section 253(1)(c) of the Act with effect from 01.06.1999. 6. Only on coming to know these factors, immediate instructions seems to have been given by the assessee to his professional advisor i.e., a Chartered Accountant and only thereafter, an appeal had been filed on 30.12.2015 before the Tribunal. 7. Because the appeal was filed long after the order of CIT obviously, there was a huge delay of 1902 days in preferring the said appeal before the tribunal. Therefore, a petition to condone the said delay was also filed in the said appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l against the order of the CIT. 13. Only at that time of discussion with other professional, pursuant to the recovery notice issued by the Revenue in the month of December 2015, this subject of rejection order passed by the CIT came up for discussion and ultimately, proper advise was received by the assessee to prefer an appeal. Therefore, only because of this genuine reason, the assessee could not make an appeal in time therefore, even though the delay was huge and inordinate one, the reason attributable to such delay is absolutely genuine and that is the reason why the actual reason for delayed approach on the part of the assessee to the Tribunal was alone given in the appeal. 14. However, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue would vehemently oppose such argument advanced on behalf of the assessee and to state that the reason adduced by the assessee in not approaching the Tribunal within the time and approaching the Tribunal with such a long delay of years together is, absolutely unacceptable. In this regard, the learned standing counsel for Revenue would submit that it is a fundamental and age old principle that ignorance of law cannot be a defence. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egardless of whether they are receiving grants from the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government or not: Provided that the institutions having valid registration under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) on the date of commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been registered under this Act. 19. In consonance with said provisions of the Juvenile Act, the appellant's children home, after having been registered by the authority concerned, was certified by proceedings dated 14.12.2016 in proceedings No.15566/D1/2016 of the Directorate of Social Defence, Government of Tamil Nadu. The relevant content of the said certification is reproduced hereunder: Proc.No.15566/D1/2016 Dt: 14.12.2016 This certificate of Registration is awarded to Hosanna Children's Home (Girls), 13-1A, Chellmapatti, Sangareddikkottai (P.O), Athoor (T.K). Dindigul Main Road, Batlagundu, Dindigul District 624 211 an institution for children in need of care and protection vide S.No.316/DSD/2016 under section 41 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This certificate of registration i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lodging an appeal late. 2.Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4.When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the 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 non-deliberate delay. 5.There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6.It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its right to exemption on the basis of promissory estoppel at the time when it addressed the letter dated 25th June, 1970. In fact, in the petition as originally filed, the right to claim total exemption from sales tax was not based on the plea of promissory estoppel which was introduced only by way of amendment. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule, J., pointed out in Martindala v. Faulkner, (1846) 2 CB 706 There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law: it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so . Scrutton, also once said: It is impossible to know all the statutory law, and not very possible to know all the common law. But it was Lord Atkin who, as in so many other spheres, put the point in its proper context when he said in Evans v. Bartlem, 1937 AC 473 ...... the fact is that there is not and never has been a presumption that every one knows the law. There is the rule that ignorance of the law d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
