BABA KARTAR SINGH DUKKI EDU TRUST LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

Delay of 8 days' in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2 This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure A-9) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 1360/CHD/2012, for the assessment year 2001-02, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- I. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12AA(2) r.w. 119(2)(b), the action for not exercise of inherent juri iction for GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.08.20 10:50 integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh -2- condoning delay (partially) is unreasonable and not in accordance with law? II. Whether under the facts and circumstnaces of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing registration u/s. 12AA(2) with effect from Assessment Year 2001-02 after having allowed registration the same? III. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of CIT in declining to allow registration U/s. 12AA(2) with effect from Assessment Year 2001-2002?

The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant-trust was working in accordance with the trust deed dated 4.2.2000. It got registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Registration No. 429 dated 16.1.2004. On 31.5.2007, an application was made for grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Act in Form 10A. Along with the application, the aims and objects of the trust were also attached. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) vide order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure A-1) rejected the said application on two grounds, firstly not condoning the delay and secondly on the basis of the report of the Assessing Officer that the trust was not being financed by the Government. The assessee challenged the said order before the Tribunal who vide order dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure A-2) set aside the order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure A-1) and directed the CIT to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording due and GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.08.20 10:50 integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh -3- reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In pursuance thereof, the CIT after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee rejected the application vide order dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure A-4). Against the order dated 27.12.2011, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.6.2012 (Annexure A-5) following the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surya Educational and Charitable Trust, ITA Nos. 701 of 2010 and 189 of 2011 decided on 5.10.2011 (Annexure A-6) allowed the application and directed the CIT to grant registration. The CIT vide order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure A-7) allowed registration under Section 12A of the Act w.e.f. assessment year 2004-05 onwards. Against the order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure A-7), the assessee filed an appeal (Annexure A-8) before the Tribunal for granting exemption from the assessment year 2001-02 onwards instead of assessment year 2004-05 onwards. The Tribunal vide order dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure A-9) dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, an application under Section 254 (2) of the Act was filed for recalling of the order but the same has not been decided. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessee was entitled to registration under Section 12AA of the Act effective from assessment year 2001-02 instead of 2004-05 as held by the CIT and the Tribunal. It was urged that the authorities below had erred in not condoning the delay in terms of provisions of Section 12AA (2) read with Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the following judgments:-

The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the assessee had recorded that the assessee was registered vide certificate of registration dated 29.1.2004 issued by the Registrar of Firms and Societies (Punjab), Chandigarh. The assessee had not given any justified cause for not applying for registration before 31.5.2007 whereas the trust was constituted vide deed dated 4.2.2000. Thus, no ground for condonation of delay was made out. The Tribunal had observed as under:- “7.

However, the same was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax on the invocation of section 13(I) & (2) of the Act and other aspects. The Tribunal (supra) however, allowed registration to the trust. The Commissioner of Income Tax giving effect to the order of the Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2012 had condoned the delay in filing the application for registration under section 12A of the Act on 31.05.2007 by the assessee and had allowed the registration under Section 12A of the Act from the assessment year 2004-05 in line with certificate of registration dated 29.01.2004 issued by the Registrar of Firms and Societies (Punjab), Chandigarh. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee as the assessee has failed to justify the delay in filing the application under Section 12A of the Act belated on 31.05.2007 as against the constitution of the trust vide deed dated 04.02.2000. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus dismissed.”

In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal, which has not been demonstrated to be erroneous or perverse in any manner, we do not find any substance in the appeal warranting interference with the order dated 6.3.2013 (Annexure A-9). The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant being based upon individual fact situation involved therein does not advance GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.08.20 10:50 integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh -6- the case of the assessee.

Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 28, 2014