SHRI HARBADEVI GRAMDEVI MANDIR TRUST MADH,MADH MALAD WEST vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CUMBALLA HILL MUMBAI

1 In view of the above, it is submitted that there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai. Besides, the order in Form 10AB is unconstitutional being bad in law as without giving proper opportunity of being heard and without prejudice to this, it was erroneous to claim that assessee did not furnish the details as required in the application form and hence, it is prayed to condone the delay and admit the appeal, ignoring the technicality of long delay of 779 days as delay would not cause any prejudice to the respondent and urged to consider the substantial justice as the delay has not caused by any negligence but caused by the circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.

The ld.CIT(DR) objected to the condonation petition pleading that the same deserved to be rejected or in the alternative appropriate cost needs to be imposed on it. We have carefully considered the condonation petition and the reasons stated therein. We find that the reasons stated for the delay are not very convincing as the assessee sought recourse to alternative remedy u/s 154 of the Act rather than filing appeal before ITAT INC आयकर अपीलीय अधिका COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Page 5 Α.Υ. 2022-23 Shri Harbadevi Gramdevi Mandir Trust, Madh, Mumbai in time. However, it is also a fact that there is no malafide and deliberate intention to delay the proceedings at our end. Such a bonafide mistake needs to be condoned. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon'ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late........Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated....Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring

1 However, it is equally true that it is the fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue its case and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities. The framework of the Act rely heavily on the co-operation and active participation of the taxpayer. Despite the notices issued by the CIT(E), no substantive explanation was submitted. The failure of the assessee to make any INC आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Α.Υ. 2022-23 Shri Harbadevi Gramdevi Mandir Trust, Madh, Mumbai response before him reflects gross negligence and an indifference that is unacceptable. The principles of natural justice operate both ways, while the Revenue authorities are required to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the taxpayer is equally obligated to co-operate with the authorities and utilize the opportunities extended. In the present case, despite receiving adequate opportunities, the assessee displayed a casual approach and indifference. Such conduct cannot be condoned.

2 In light of the non-compliant attitude of the assessee, levy of cost needs to be evaluated in this case as cost serves as a necessary deterrent to ensure that taxpayers act with due diligence in pursuing their cases in future and respecting the timelines and processes laid down under the law. It also emphasizes the principle that while justice must be ensured, the system cannot cater to indolence or negligence on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, considering assessee's non-compliant attitude and lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal, we impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- on it. The cost shall be deposited to the credit of the Income Tax Department within 15 days of the receipt of this order and proof of payment shall be submitted before the ld.CIT(E).

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant Trust filed an application in Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. Form 10AC in this case had been issued by the CPC granting INC आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Page 7 Α.Υ. 2022-23 Shri Harbadevi Gramdevi Mandir Trust, Madh, Mumbai provisional registration under section 12AB of the Act. It was stated by the ld.CIT(E) that the relevant procedural mandate is governed by the provisions of Rule 17A of the IT Rules, and the sub rule (2) of Rule 17A mandates that the application in Form 10AB is to be accompanied by certain specific documents i.e. where the applicant is created, or established, under an instrument, self-certified copy of such instrument creating or establishing the applicant; where the applicant is created, or established, otherwise than under an instrument, self-certified copy of the document evidencing the creation or establishment of the applicant; Self- certified copy of registration with