9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order has in fact proceeded to deal with the merits of the petitioners' claim for expenses in determining its income and claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. In fact, the impugned order inter alia rejects the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there is huge cash expenditure on the part of the petitioners Trust. In fact, at the stage of considering delay condonation application filed by the petitioners, the merits of the claim cannot be a subject matter of examination as held by this Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani (2009 (12) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Kerala High Court in the case of Pala Marketing Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2007 (11) TMI 294 - KERALA HIGH COURT] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioners Trust is involved in charitable activities and is running a Hospital along with a Medical Research Centre at Nashik as well as a dispensary at Mumbai. 4. The petitioners being a registered Charitable Trust claims exemption from tax under Section 11(1) of the Act for the year ended 31st March, 2014 i.e. Assessment Year 2014-15. For the first time since 1971, the petitioners were unable to file its return of income within the prescribed time for Assessment Year 2014-15 i.e. before 30th September, 2014 under Section 139(1) of the Act. This resulted in the petitioners not being able to claim refund of tax deducted at source on receipt of interest from banks / others aggregating to ₹ 7.13 lakhs. This was as time to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his includes : (a) Evidence for the claim (b) Evidence for the TDS (c) Computation of Income Tax (ii) The claim is within 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. (a) The claim is correct and genuine (b) There is a case of genuine hardship (iii) Income is not assessable in the hands of any other person (iv) The refund has arisen as a result of excess TDS. 7. The petitioners by its letters dated 23rd May, 2017 and 8th June, 2017 responded to the notice dated 24th April, 2017. It was pointed out that the delay in filing the refund was due to late finalizing of accounts and consequent delay in audit. This delay in accounts was due to search action on the group leading to key employees l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious criteria which the petitioners were asked to satisfy for consideration of its application for condonation of delay as set out by order dated 24th April, 2017 issued by the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The impugned order has in fact proceeded to deal with the merits of the petitioners' claim for expenses in determining its income and claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. In fact, the impugned order inter alia rejects the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there is huge cash expenditure on the part of the petitioners Trust. In fact, at the stage of considering delay condonation application filed by the petitioners, the merits of the claim cannot be a subject matter of examina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust Act. The petitioners income is exempted from tax under Section 11 of the Act and consequently the refund of the tax deducted at source of ₹ 7.13 lakhs would be utilized by the petitioners' Trust in discharge of its charitable objects particularly in running a Hospital at Nashik and a dispensary in Mumbai. The impugned order completely ignores the decision of this Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani (supra). In the above case, this Court while dealing with the meaning of the words genuine hardship as found in Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, had observed that: 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
