9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see 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. - ITA No. 10/VNS/2020 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2022 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member And Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri R.K. Vishwakarma, CIT DR ORDER PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No.10/VNS/2020 for assessment year 2018-19, is directed against order dated 30.10.2019 (Order No. ITBA/EXM/S/EXM15/2019-20/1019562994(1)) passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow (hereinafter called the CIT(E) ) dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion filed on 27.10.18 for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) for the year/s subsequent to F.Y. 1718 when this application, so far as it relates to subsequent year/s, is within prescribed time and also as per law. 8. That the application filed on 27.10.18 filed for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), so far as it relates to subsequent year/s, deserves to allowed when all the conditions for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) for subsequent year/s are fulfilled in the case. 9. That the ld. CIT- Exemption deserves to be directed to grant the exemption certificate u/s 10(23C)(vi). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse society filed an application in Form No. 56D for registration under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the 1961 Act on 27th October, 2018 with Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lucknow. Before proceeding further, it will be pertinent to mention here itself that the ld. CIT(E) has referred to in its order that the application filed by the assessee is for financial year 2018-19( assessment year 2019-20), while the assessee has stated in Form No. 36 filed with tribunal, at para 1 of Appeal details , that the assessee filed an application for financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in the purpose of grant of exemption or continuance thereof, such application shall be made on or before the 30th day of September of the relevant assessment year from which the exemption is sought . Considering the afore-mentioned proviso, the application should have been filed on or before 30th September 2018 for claiming the exemption from the F.Y. 2018-19(sic. F.Y.2017-18), but the same was filed on 27.10.2018 i.e. beyond the prescribed time period as enshrined in the Act. Hence, on this ground alone, the application of the society is liable to be rejected. (ii) The issue of condonation of delay was examined by Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Roland Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. CCIT others ((2009)309 ITR 50], in the judgment dated 17.09.2008. Hon'ble High Court in this case observed as below, while providing period of limitation for presenting application for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) before the CCIT, the legislature has not made any provision for condonation of delay in presentation of such application as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 309 ITR 13 (Ori.); merely directed the Chief Commissioner to consider an application for condonation of delay in filing an application. The Division Bench had carefully directed that whether delay should be condoned or not, should be decided by the Commissioner. Hence, the decision will not help the case of the petitioner. 4. From the foregoing, it is clear that the assessee did not apply for the exemption within the stipulated time under the Act. In view of above discussion, the application does not satisfy the condition prescribed for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 and hence the application for the exemption filed on 27.10.2018 by the assessee society, seeking issuance of exemption certificate u/s 10(23C) (vi) of the IT act, 1961 from F.Y. 2018-19(sic. F.Y.201718) onwards is hereby rejected. 4. Aggrieved by rejection of the registration sought by assessee u/s 10(23C)(vi) by order dated 30.10.2019 passed by ld. CIT(E), the assessee has now filed an appeal before the tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing before Division Bench , nor any adjournment application was filed . The notices were sent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for grant of exemption from the assessment year 2019-20 onwards. While respondent No.1 was correct in rejecting the application for the assessment year 2019-20 as being time-barred, it certainly fell in error in not considering the said application for subsequent assessment years i.e. for assessment year 2020-21 and onwards. Because even if the application was filed on 31-10-2019 which was belated for the assessment year 2019-20, it was before the prescribed date for the subsequent assessment year i.e. assessment year 2020-21 and thereafter as it had been filed much before the cut of date of 30-9-2020. 28. That apart, we feel that even at this stage petitioner may approach CBDT under section 119(2)(b) seeking a special order to respondent No. 1 to condone the delay in filing the application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20, there being admitted delay of 31 days in filing the application for the said assessment year, and thereafter to deal with the said application/claim on merit in accordance with law. Thus, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT(E) rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
