Nosegay Public School Management Committee v. CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0980 (Jod-Trib) : (2013) 153 TTJ 0001 : (2013) 058 SOT 0185 Income Tax Act, 1961 --Appeal [Tribunal]--Condonation of delay Existence of reasonable cause--Reason for delay of 1660 days in filing appeal by assessee was stated to be wrong advice and ignorance of law of person who were managers assessee institution was a reasonable case as Commissioner as well as assessing officer have final... objections of assessee 'charitable in nature and no doubt had been raised in this regard there was thus no option but to condone this delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Reason for this delay is stated to be due to wrong advice and 'ignorance of law' of the persons who are managing this institution. [Para 7] When appellant is a Charitable Institution, and the Commissioner as well as the Income Tax Officer have found the objects of the appellant 'charitable in nature' no doubt has been raised in this regard, we are left with no option to condone this delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. In such a institution the trustee or any in-charge has got no personal interest, but such institutions serve the public cause of charity. Anybody so connected may have perfunctory interest and such like long delays usually occur. There are raft of decisions which favour condonation of such delays, instead of defeating the cause of charity at the very threshold. That is why the law has permitted such institution to exist and flourish for public cause. There may be some institutions which may also work against the dictum of the law and avail personal benefits of its trustees but such cases have to be segregated. In the light of the decisions, this appeal deserves to be admitted after condoning the delay. [Para 11] Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 253(5) Income Tax Act, 1961 --Charitable trust--Registration under section 12ADisposal of application after six months --Where Commissioner undeniably had passed order under section 12A(a) beyond six months of receipt of application in Form No. 10A in his office on 30-3-2006, impugned order was passed on 14-6-2007 beyond six months as had been prescribed in section 12A in such eventualities application for registration was deemed to have been allowed with effect from date of inception i.e.9-11-1985 and from 1-4-2005. Commissioner undeniably has passed the order under section 12A(a) beyond six months of the receipt of application in Form No. 10A in its office on 30-3-2006. The impugned order was passed on 14-6-2007, beyond six months as has been prescribed in section 12A. In such eventualities, the application for registration is deemed to have been allowed. If the order is not passed by Commissioner within 6 months of receipt of application in Form 10A, under section 12A, it is deemed that it stand allowed. The order passed by Commissioner refusing registration was treated as a 'nullity' liable to be quashed. Thus, registration was deemed to be granted 'as applied for by the assessee'. In this case also, similar situation has occurred. The only difference is that the Commissioner has registered the Institution but with effect from 1-4-2005, ignoring the date of registration given in the Form No. 10A. Since the assessee had applied to get registration from the date of its inception, it is wrong and illegal to allow the same with effect from 1-4-2005 under this deeming provision. This registration has to be treated to have been granted with effect from the date of its inception i.e. 9-11-1985. Accordingly, the Commissioner is directed to grant registration to the appellant with effect from 9-11-1985, which already deemed to have been granted. In view of our above finding, the other appeal would be of academic interest only. [Para 12] SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0980 (Jod-Trib) : (2013) 153 TTJ 0001 : (2013) 058 SOT 0185

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Appeal [Tribunal]--Condonation of delay Existence of reasonable cause--Reason for delay of 1660 days in filing appeal by assessee was stated to be wrong advice and ignorance of law of person who were managers assessee institution was a reasonable case as Commissioner as well as assessing officer have final... objections of assessee 'charitable in nature and no doubt had been raised in this regard there was thus no option but to condone this delay in filing appeal before Tribunal.

Reason for this delay is stated to be due to wrong advice and 'ignorance of law' of the persons who are managing this institution. [Para 7] When appellant is a Charitable Institution, and the Commissioner as well as the Income Tax Officer have found the objects of the appellant 'charitable in nature' no doubt has been raised in this regard, we are left with no option to condone this delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. In such a institution the trustee or any in-charge has got no personal interest, but such institutions serve the public cause of charity. Anybody so connected may have perfunctory interest and such like long delays usually occur. There are raft of decisions which favour condonation of such delays, instead of defeating the cause of charity at the very threshold. That is why the law has permitted such institution to exist and flourish for public cause. There may be some institutions which may also work against the dictum of the law and avail personal benefits of its trustees but such cases have to be segregated. In the light of the decisions, this appeal deserves to be admitted after condoning the delay. [Para 11]

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 253(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Charitable trust--Registration under section 12ADisposal of application after six months --Where Commissioner undeniably had passed order under section 12A(a) beyond six months of receipt of application in Form No. 10A in his office on 30-3-2006, impugned order was passed on 14-6-2007 beyond six months as had been prescribed in section 12A in such eventualities application for registration was deemed to have been allowed with effect from date of inception i.e.9-11-1985 and from 1-4-2005.

Commissioner undeniably has passed the order under section 12A(a) beyond six months of the receipt of application in Form No. 10A in its office on 30-3-2006. The impugned order was passed on 14-6-2007, beyond six months as has been prescribed in section 12A. In such eventualities, the application for registration is deemed to have been allowed. If the order is not passed by Commissioner within 6 months of receipt of application in Form 10A, under section 12A, it is deemed that it stand allowed. The order passed by Commissioner refusing registration was treated as a 'nullity' liable to be quashed. Thus, registration was deemed to be granted 'as applied for by the assessee'. In this case also, similar situation has occurred. The only difference is that the Commissioner has registered the Institution but with effect from 1-4-2005, ignoring the date of registration given in the Form No. 10A. Since the assessee had applied to get registration from the date of its inception, it is wrong and illegal to allow the same with effect from 1-4-2005 under this deeming provision. This registration has to be treated to have been granted with effect from the date of its inception i.e. 9-11-1985. Accordingly, the Commissioner is directed to grant registration to the appellant with effect from 9-11-1985, which already deemed to have been granted. In view of our above finding, the other appeal would be of academic interest only. [Para 12]