Hosanna Ministries v. ITO

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Appeal (Tribunal)--Condonation of delayIgnorance of law----Where CIT denied registration under section 12AA and assessee filed appeal against the rejection order after a huge delay, the delay was condoned as revenue had not refuted averment of ignorance of law made by the assessee and also assessee was functioning after proper registration with the authorities concerned under relevant statute.--Assessee-trust was running a children home. It had applied for registration under section 12AA. CIT denied the registration and no further action had been taken by the assessee. After some years, the assessee had received recovery notice from Revenue. Only in that context, the assessee had discussion with professional person where the order refusing to register the trust under section 12AA had been brought to the notice to the professional and on whose advise the assessee came to know that as against the order of rejection an appeal to the Tribunal has been provided for by way of newly inserted section 253(1)(c) with effect from 1-6-1999. Thereafter, an appeal had been filed before the Tribunal. Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that such huge delay of 1902 days in preferring the appeal showed that the assessee was not vigilant in pursuing the appeal and also it appeared that the assessee was not serious in complying with the provisions of the Act. Also assessee was not found to be engaged in the activities in accordance with the objects specified in the trust deed. According to the assessee, the trust being a charitable entity could not get professional advise from best brain. Held: Assessee knew well that if a plea of ignorance of law is taken, that would be, on the face of it, rejected by the court/Tribunal, nevertheless, such a plea alone had been taken by the assessee and that itself would show the inherent genuineness attached with the reason cited by the assessee for such huge delay. While ignorance of law is no excuse, however, there is not and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law. It was, therefore, not possible to presume, in the absence of any material placed, that the assessee had full knowledge of its right to appeal. Further, the assessee had been functioning after proper registration with the authorities concerned under the Juvenile Act and a recent certification issued by authorities would be valid for next five years. Therefore, the genuineness or otherwise of the functioning of the assessee could not be doubted. In view of these facts and circumstances, order of Tribunal rejecting the appeal was set aside.