9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kadaisical 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. Assessee appeal dismissed. - 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: These three appeals emanate from the separate orders dated 23.08.2022, 23.08.2024 and 24.08.2022 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(1)(b)(ii) / 12A of the Income-tax Act (in short, the Act ) and also cancelled the provisional registration. In all appeals, facts are common and grounds of appeal are similar. With the consent of both the parties, all appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 1987 taxmann.com 1072 (SC), and (ii) LTCL Palaniappa Charities Trust, ITA No.575 576/CHNY/2023. 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 534 days. From the affidavit, it is clear that the assessee was negligent and casual in persuing its matter before the Ld. CIT(E). After filing the application, he never followed the same. Assessee is an old trust and knows the procedure but it was inactive. 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- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lful negligence nor it suffered from want of diligence. While considering the issue against this order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the 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 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 in Para 6 of the said decision. 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 should be to encourage a healthy discussion on merits than rejecting at threshold. It also held that there was no willful negligenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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. 12. The Ld. AR also relied upon Tribunal decision in the case of LTCL Palaniappa Charities Trust (supra). However, the issue in the above decision is not with regard to condonation of delay and it was primarily filing of application by the trust in Form No.10AB instead of Form No.10A. The Tribunal held that merely because a technical breach was committed by the assessee, the same can be cured by assessee by filing application in Form No.10AB of the Act along with other details. Hence, this decision of ITAT is not directly on the issue at hand. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) was pronounced on 19.02.1987. However, we find that in the subsequent decisions namely (i) Ramlal, Motilal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ors (2007) 11 SCC 285 (SC), (ii) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) (iiii) Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (supra), (iv) Maqbul Ahmad and Ors vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, AIR 1935 PC 85 (SC) (v) Brijesh Kumar and Ors vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2014 (4) SCALE 50 (vi) Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 363 (vii) State of Jharkhand Ors vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1927 (viii) Basawaraj and Ors (supra) and held as under: 7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in 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. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with 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 asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
