9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMIX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rust and subsequent follow up action indulging filing of appeal. Such casual, indifferent and lackadaisical approach towards the order of rejection of registration cannot constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act. In view of the above facts and respectfully following the authoritative precedents cited supra, we refuse to condone the delay, requested by the assessee. Since, delay has not been condoned, it becomes academic in nature to discuss the merit of the case. - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA For the Respondent : Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT-DR ORDER PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal emanates from the order dated 16.09.2022, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [in short, Ld. CIT(E) ], wherein the Ld. CIT(E) rejected assessee s application for registration of trust u/s 12AB of the Income-tax Act (in short, the Act ) and also cancelled the provisional registration. 2. This appeal is delayed by 506 days. The assessee-trust has filed affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On the other hand, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax - Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT-DR stated that the reasons given by the assessee in the affidavit would not constitute sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay. The delay is not for a short period but it is for a very long period of 506 days. From the affidavit, it is clear that the assessee was inactive, negligent and casual in persuing the impugned application before the Ld. CIT(E). After filing the application, he never followed up the same. Hence, there was no sufficient cause for the delay. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue relied on the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi Ors., in Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021, dated 16.12.2021. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of condonation of delay. In the affidavit, the assessee has stated that the delay was caused because the e-mail was not opened by the receiver of the e-mail ids. The CA logged in ITBA portal to check the assessment order passed for AY.2022-23. It was found by him t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r it suffered from want of diligence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not upheld the order of the Hon'ble High Court. While considering the issue against this order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its own cases in (i) Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) 2 SCR 762, (ii) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (iii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iv) Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81. The respondent had argued in above case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi Ors (supra) that if the delay is condoned, the appeal will be considered and decided on merit and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not accepted such a view. It has reproduced the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Para 6 of the order. In the decision, the Hon'ble High Court stated that if delay is condoned though enormous, what happens at best is to give an opportunity to the parties to canvass their respective case. Since, this question being of procedure, the attempt of the court shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th on law as well as on facts. 11. The Ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). In the said case, there was delay of only 4 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case held that 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. This decision was pronounced on 19.02.1987. 12. However, we find that in the subsequent decisions namely (i) P. K. Ramachandran vs State of Kerala Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, (ii) Pundik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineers, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and (iii) Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, (iv) Pathapati Subba Reddy (dies) By L. Rs. Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP(C) No.31248 of 2018 (SC), dated 08.04.2024, it was held that condonation of delay should not be granted only on the ground that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 13. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-avis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals. 15. It has also discussed the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) relied upon by Ld. AR, and held that the phrases liberal approach , justice-oriented approach and cause of advancement of substantial justice cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation. For ready reference of equality, the same is reproduced hereunder: 16. .In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors.2, this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for sufficient cause held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day s delay in filing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 18. The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar. The assessee has filed the appeal after an inordinate delay of 506 days. The reason given is that while checking fate of the assessment order, the CA also checked the status of application for registration and found that the application has been rejected. It means that the assessee was primarily concerned about the fate of assessment order. The CA also checked the fate of the application filed for registration while checking the assessment order. It is thus crystal clear that after filing the application, it had remained inactive and negligent. There was no due diligence on the part of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
